processed food essay

Processed Foods and Health

Processed foods are generally thought to be inferior to unprocessed foods. The term may suggest that a packaged food item contains many ingredients, perhaps even artificial colors, flavors, or other chemical additives. Often referred to as convenience or pre-prepared foods, processed foods are suggested to contribute to the obesity epidemic and the rising prevalence of chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes. However, the definition of processed food varies widely depending on the source:

• The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines a processed food as one that has undergone any changes to its natural state—that is, any raw agricultural commodity subjected to washing, cleaning, milling, cutting, chopping, heating, pasteurizing, blanching, cooking, canning, freezing, drying, dehydrating, mixing, packaging, or other procedures that alter the food from its natural state. The food may include the addition of other ingredients such as preservatives, flavors, nutrients and other food additives or substances approved for use in food products, such as salt, sugars, and fats.
• The Institute of Food Technologists includes additional processing terms like storing, filtering, fermenting, extracting, concentrating, microwaving, and packaging. [1]

According to these standards, virtually all foods sold in the supermarket would be classified as “processed” to some degree. Because food begins to deteriorate and loses nutrients as soon as it is harvested, even the  apples  in the produce aisle undergo four or more processing steps before being sold to the consumer. That’s why in practice, it’s helpful to differentiate between the various degrees of food processing.

Types of Food Processing

A popular system to classify processed foods was introduced in 2009, called the NOVA classification. It lists four categories considering the degree to which a food is processed and the purpose of these modifications: [2-4]

Unprocessed or minimally processed foods

Processed culinary ingredients

Processed foods

Ultra-processed foods

The NOVA system is recognized by the World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, and the Pan American Health Organization, but not currently in the U.S. by the Food and Drug Administration or USDA. NOVA has been criticized for being too general in classifying certain foods, causing confusion. For example, yogurt may fall into more than one category: plain yogurt is minimally processed, but fruited yogurt with added sweeteners could be labeled either processed or ultra-processed depending on how much sweetener and other chemical additives are incorporated. NOVA also does not provide comprehensive lists of specific foods in each category, so the consumer is left to guess where each may fall.

Is Processed Food Unhealthy?

There’s no doubt that at least some processed foods are found in most people’s kitchens. There are benefits and drawbacks.

• Frozen, pre-chopped, and canned ingredients can be time-savers in the kitchen.
• Some processed and fortified foods provide important nutrients that may not otherwise be obtained in a busy household or one that has a limited food budget.
• From a nutritional standpoint, processed and even ultra-processed foods can provide key nutrients. Some nutrients, like protein, are naturally retained throughout processing, and others, such as B vitamins and iron, may be added back if they are lost during processing. Fruits and vegetables that are quickly frozen after harvesting can  retain the majority of vitamin C .
• Throughout history, foods fortified with specific nutrients have prevented deficiencies and their related health problems in certain populations. Examples include infant cereals fortified with iron and B vitamins to prevent anemia, milk fortified with vitamin D to prevent rickets, wheat flour fortified with folic acid to prevent birth defects and iodine added to salt to prevent goiter.
• Processing by certain methods like pasteurization, cooking, and drying can destroy or inhibit the growth of harmful bacteria. Additives such as emulsifiers preserve the texture of foods, such as preventing peanut butter from separating into solid and liquid parts. Other functions of processing include delaying the spoilage of food; preserving desirable sensory qualities of food (flavor, texture, aroma, appearance); and increasing convenience in preparing a complete meal.
• Therefore, the indispensable role of food processing enables us to have a stable and predictable food supply and maintains food and nutrient security.

Depending on the degree of processing, nutrients can be destroyed or removed. Peeling outer layers of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains may remove plant nutrients (phytochemicals) and fiber. Heating or drying foods can destroy certain vitamins and minerals. Although food manufacturers can add back some of the nutrients lost, it is impossible to recreate the food in its original form.

Currently, bread and frozen meals are some of the most consumed ultra-processed foods in the U.S. [5] While these products can be good sources of whole grains, fiber, vitamins, and minerals, they can also be high in sodium, added sugars, and saturated fats. Given the variety of ultra-processed foods, it may be helpful to distinguish those with lower nutritional value from the broader category. Such distinction can be determined by evaluating a food’s nutritional content and long-term health effects. A product with an unevenly high ratio of calories to fiber and healthy nutrients (e.g., unsaturated fats, B vitamins, potassium) may be considered an “ultra-processed food of low nutritional value.” For example, soda provides high calories from added sugars and no healthy nutrients; and research supports an association between a high intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. On the other hand, whole-grain bread and fiber-containing low-sugar breakfast cereals that may be fortified with nutrients such as folic acid have consistently been linked with lower rates of stroke. [6]

To help illustrate the spectrum of food processing, the table below includes ultra-processed foods of low nutritional value as its own category. We also we separate the NOVA categories of “unprocessed” and “minimally processed” foods, and omit NOVA’s “processed culinary ingredients” category, which mainly includes supplementary food components to assist in cooking and food preparation.

Decoding the ingredients list on a food label

• The ingredients are listed in order of quantity by weight. This means that the food ingredient that weighs the most will be listed first, and the ingredient that weighs the least is listed last. [7]
• Some ingredients like sugar and salt may be listed by other names. For example, alternative terms for sugar are corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, honey, agave nectar, cane sugar, evaporated cane juice, coconut sugar, dextrose, malt syrup, molasses, or turbinado sugar. Other terms for sodium include monosodium glutamate or disodium phosphate.
• Preservatives —ascorbic acid, sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, tocopherols
• Emulsifiers that prevent separation of liquids and solids—soy lecithin, monoglycerides
• Thickeners to add texture—xanthan gum, pectin, carrageenan , guar gum
• Colors —artificial FD&C Yellow No. 6 or natural beta-carotene to add yellow hues
• Fortified foods contain vitamins and minerals that are added after processing. Either these nutrients were lost during processing, or they were added because they are lacking in the average diet. Examples include B vitamins (riboflavin, niacin, niacinamide, folate or folic acid), beta carotene, iron (ferrous sulfate), vitamin C (ascorbic acid), vitamin D, or amino acids to boost protein content (L-tryptophan, L-lysine, L-leucine, L-methionine).

Ingredients used widely in the production of ultra-processed foods such as  saturated fats ,  added sugar , and  sodium have become markers of poor diet quality due to their effect on heart disease, obesity, and high blood pressure. [8,9] It is estimated that ultra-processed foods contribute about 90% of the total calories obtained from added sugars. [5]  

• In 2015, the World Health Organization categorized processed meats as cancer-causing to humans. They defined “processed meat” as meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation. The statement was made after 22 scientists from the International Agency for Research on Cancer Working Group evaluated more than 800 studies on the topic. The evidence on processed meats was strongest for colorectal cancer, followed by stomach cancer. [10]
• An analysis of the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study found that a higher intake of ultra-processed foods like processed meats and potato chips was associated with weight gain over 4 years. [11] Other studies suggest that the more that ultra-processed foods are eaten, the greater the risk of a diet lacking in important nutrients. An evaluation of the dietary intakes of 9,317 U.S. participants in an NHANES cohort found that higher intakes of ultra-processed foods were linked with greater consumption of refined carbohydrate, added sugars, and saturated fat. At the same time, intakes of fiber, zinc, potassium, phosphorus, magnesium, calcium, and vitamins A, C, D, and E decreased. [12]
• Another observational study among nearly 20,000 Spanish university graduates in the Seguimiento University of Navarra (SUN) cohort found that higher consumption (more than 4 servings per day) of ultra-processed food was associated with a 62% increased risk of death from any cause compared with lower consumption (less than 2 servings per day). For each additional daily serving of ultra-processed food, there was an 18% increased risk of death. Based on their findings, the researchers noted the importance of policies that limit the proportion of ultra-processed foods in the diet and promote consumption of unprocessed or minimally processed foods to improve global public health. [13] Other cohort studies in France (NutriNet Santé) and the U.S. (NHANES) have also found that consumption of ultra-processed foods was directly associated with higher all-cause mortality. [14,15]
• In 2019, a randomized controlled trial looked at whether ultra-processed foods, as defined under the NOVA classification, might indeed cause people to eat more. Ten men and ten women were randomized to receive either an ultra-processed diet or unprocessed diet for 14 days, followed by 14 more days of the alternate diet. The diets were relatively equal in calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and other nutrients, and participants were allowed to eat as much or as little as they liked. The study found that participants ate about 500 calories more on the ultra-processed diet and also gained weight (about 2 pounds). [16] Most of the extra calories came from carbohydrate and fats, and the diet also increased their sodium intake. When the participants changed to the unprocessed diet, they ate fewer calories and lost the weight they gained. According to appetite surveys, the diets did not differ in levels of hunger, fullness, and satisfaction, though participants tended to eat faster on the ultra-processed diet.
• Reviews of cohort and cross-sectional studies were conducted to assess the effect of ultra-processed foods on health. Results from cross-sectional studies found that the highest intakes of ultra-processed foods were associated with significantly higher odds  of overweight/obesity, low HDL cholesterol, and metabolic syndrome. [17,18]   Results from cohort studies found an association with the highest ultra-processed food intake and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, early deaths from any cause, and depression. [17]
• Another review looked at trends with ultra-processed foods using 100 studies from around the world. [19] The study found that ultra-processed foods (especially breads, cookies, savory snacks, juices, sodas, and breakfast cereals) tended to be eaten the most by those with lower education status and by children and adolescents. However, vegans and vegetarians were also found to have higher intakes of ultra-processed foods when classifying plant-based meat and dairy substitutes as highly processed items. The authors noted the difficulty in comparing study results due to the different definitions of ultra-processed foods (e.g., the same food may have been classified differently among studies). They also observed that most studies used food frequency questionnaires to assess ultra-processed food intake, which are not validated to do so, and therefore any conclusions drawn from the studies should be interpreted cautiously.
• A systematic review with meta-analysis incorporating data from cohort studies including the Nurses Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study found that a higher ultra-processed food intake was associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes. [20] Certain food categories were associated with disease risk such as refined breads, artificially and sugar-sweetened beverages, animal-based products, and ready-to-eat mixed dishes. On the other hand, whole-grain breads and cereals and savory snacks like light crackers and fat-free popcorn were associated with lower risk of this condition.

The Bottom Line

Food processing is a very broad spectrum that ranges from basic technologies like freezing or milling, to the incorporation of additives that promote shelf stability or increase palatability. As a general rule, emphasizing unprocessed or minimally processed foods in the daily diet is optimal. That said, the use of processed and even ultra-processed foods is the choice of the consumer, and there are pros and cons that come with each type. The Nutrition Facts Label and ingredients list can be useful tools in deciding when to include a more processed food in one’s diet. There is evidence showing an association with certain types of food processing and poor health outcomes, especially low-nutrient ultra-processed foods that contain added sugars ,  excess sodium , and  unhealthful fats . But there also exist ultra-processed foods that have low amounts of these ingredients while being fortified in beneficial nutrients such as calcium, protein, fiber, and vitamins B and D.

Research is still clarifying if any harmful health effects from ultra-processed foods arise from the higher degree of processing or simply from the poorer nutritional quality often accompanying these types of foods. There is a growing range of processed and ultra-processed foods available, and some products may be a useful addition to a healthful diet.

Put it into practice: Ideas for a day of minimally-processed meals

You don’t have to avoid all processed foods but begin by adding more fresh or minimally processed ingredients to your shopping cart. More time may be needed to prepare these foods than just opening a can or popping a frozen container in a microwave, but the rewards may be fresher flavors, increased nutrients, and eating less additives that have no nutritional benefit.

• Look for breads that include whole grain flour as the main ingredient (it should be listed first) and that contain minimal additives and preservatives.
• Swap out butter spreads for mashed avocado or nut/seed butters.
• Choose breakfast cereals with less added sugar, such as plain steel-cut or large flake oats, plain shredded wheat, and low-sugar mueslis. Add nuts, chia seeds , or flaxseeds and fresh diced fruit to cereals for a heartier meal.

Lunch/Dinner:

• Reduce takeout and prepare more home-cooked meals using fresh ingredients or processed frozen or canned ingredients that are low in added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat.
• Choose fresh poultry and fish, dried or low-sodium canned legumes , dry or frozen plain whole grains (brown or wild rice , farro, millet, quinoa ), fresh or frozen unseasoned vegetables, and herbs, spices, and vinegars .
• Cook in bulk and freeze extra food so that you have meals ready to reheat when you are bus Dinner leftovers make a great next-day lunch! If you are not used to cooking at home, it may require some planning ahead and experimentation at first.
• Try fresh washed and sliced fruits, raw sliced vegetables with hummus, plain or low-sugar yogurt, unsalted nuts, roasted chickpeas or other beans, edamame, overnight oats , or homemade trail mix with nuts, seeds, and dried fruit.

Beverages: Your body appreciates plain water ! Try it chilled with ice, warmed, or infused with fresh mint, slices of citrus fruit, or a piece of ginger.

Restaurants:

• Bypass the usual highly processed fast-food options of fried chicken, burgers, and fries. Visit eateries that offer fresh vegetables or salads; lean fresh protein foods like fish, poultry, tofu, or legumes; and whole grains that are simply prepared without excess salt and fat.
• Research menus online when available, to save time when making food selectio
• Weaver CM, Dwyer J, Fulgoni III VL, King JC, Leveille GA, MacDonald RS, Ordovas J, Schnakenberg D. Processed foods: contributions to nutrition. The American journal of clinical nutrition . 2014 Apr 23;99(6):1525-42.
• Monteiro CA. Nutrition and health. The issue is not food, nor nutrients, so much as processing. Public health nutrition . 2009 May;12(5):729-31.
• Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Moubarac JC, Levy RB, Louzada ML, Jaime PC. The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing. Public Health Nutrition . 2018 Jan;21(1):5-17.
• Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Levy RB et al. NOVA. The star shines bright. [Food classification. Public health] World Nutrition January-March 2016, 7, 1-3, 28-38.
• Steele EM, Baraldi LG, da Costa Louzada ML, Moubarac JC, Mozaffarian D, Monteiro CA. Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the US diet: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study. BMJ open. 2016 Jan 1;6(3):e009892.
• Hankey GJ. B vitamins for stroke prevention. Stroke and vascular neurology . 2018 Jun 1;3(2).
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Food Labeling Guide: Guidance for Industry. January 2013.
• Tapsell LC, Neale EP, Satija A, Hu FB. Foods, nutrients, and dietary patterns: interconnections and implications for dietary guidelines. Advances in Nutrition . 2016 May 9;7(3):445-54.
• Poti JM, Braga B, Qin B. Ultra-processed Food Intake and Obesity: What Really Matters for Health—Processing or Nutrient Content?. Current obesity reports . 2017 Dec 1;6(4):420-31.
• Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, Grosse Y, El Ghissassi F, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N, Mattock H, Straif K. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. The Lancet Oncology . 2015 Dec 1;16(16):1599-600.
• Mozaffarian D, Hao T, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Hu FB. Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. New England Journal of Medicine . 2011 Jun 23;364(25):2392-404.
• Steele EM, Popkin BM, Swinburn B, Monteiro CA. The share of ultra-processed foods and the overall nutritional quality of diets in the US: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study. Population health metrics . 2017 Dec;15(1):6.
• Rico-Campà A, Martínez-González MA, Alvarez-Alvarez I, de Deus Mendonça R, de la Fuente-Arrillaga C, Gómez-Donoso C, Bes-Rastrollo M. Association between consumption of ultra-processed foods and all cause mortality: SUN prospective cohort study. BMJ . 2019 May 29;365:l1949.
• Schnabel L, Kesse-Guyot E, Allès B, Touvier M, Srour B, Hercberg S, Buscail C, Julia C. Association Between Ultraprocessed Food Consumption and Risk of Mortality Among Middle-aged Adults in France. JAMA internal medicine . 2019 Feb 11.
• Kim H, Hu EA, Rebholz CM. Ultra-processed food intake and mortality in the USA: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988–1994). Public health nutrition . 2019 Feb 21:1-9.
• Hall KD, Ayuketah A, Brychta R, Cai H, Cassimatis T, Chen KY, Chung ST, Costa E, Courville A, Darcey V, Fletcher LA. Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake. Cell metabolism . 2019 May 16.
• Pagliai G, Dinu M, Madarena MP, Bonaccio M, Iacoviello L, Sofi F. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health status: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Nutrition . 2021 Feb;125(3):308-18.
• Askari M, Heshmati J, Shahinfar H, Tripathi N, Daneshzad E. Ultra-processed food and the risk of overweight and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. International journal of obesity . 2020 Oct;44(10):2080-91.
• Marino M, Puppo F, Del Bo’ C, Vinelli V, Riso P, Porrini M, Martini D. A systematic review of worldwide consumption of ultra-processed foods: findings and criticisms. Nutrients . 2021 Aug 13;13(8):2778.
• Chen Z, Khandpur N, Desjardins C, Wang L, Monteiro CA, Rossato SL, Fung TT, Manson JE, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Hu FB. Ultra-processed food consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: three large prospective US cohort studies. Diabetes Care . 2023 Jul 1;46(7):1335-44.

Last reviewed August 2023

Terms of Use

The contents of this website are for educational purposes and are not intended to offer personal medical advice. You should seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website. The Nutrition Source does not recommend or endorse any products.

• Antioxidants
• Weight Management
• Vitamins & Supplements
• Exercise & Mobility
• Cholesterol
• Hypertension
• Improving Memory
• Give a Gift
• Activate My Web Access
• Customer Service
• Free e-newsletter
• Reset Password

• #7213 (no title)
• Contact the Editor
• Content restricted
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – J
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – K
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – L
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – M
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – N
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – O
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – P
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – Q
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – R
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – S
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – T
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – A
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – B
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – C
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – D
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – E
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – F
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – G
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – H
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – I
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – U
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – V
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – W
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – X
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – Y
• Nutrition 101 – Glossary – Z
• Manage Email
• Current Issue
• OFIE – Subscriber only
• Online Account Activation
• Privacy Policy
• Registration Complete
• Sample Page
• Subscribe Now
• Tufts & Health Nutrition
• Tufts & Health Nutrition | JH Inforce
• Tufts & Health Nutrition | JHV Employee
• Tufts & Health Nutrition | John Hancock
• Tufts & Health Nutrition | Manulife Asia
• Tufts & Health Nutrition | Manulife Vitality
• Tufts & Health Nutrition | NU101
• Tufts & Health Nutrition | Tufts Employees

Tomato, Peach, and Basil Salad

Classic Gazpacho

Zucchini Salad with Lemon and Basil

Farmer’s Market Pasta Salad

Vitamin Supplements: 
Yes, or No?

Dietary Supplements for Sports Performance

Melatonin Supplements

The Truth about “Brain-Boosting” Supplements

Many Herbal Products Found to Have Substantial Quality Issues

Dance Can Help with Weight Loss and Body Composition

Let’s Get Moving!

Even a Little Physical Activity May Lower the Risks of Sedentary…

How to Stick to Those Resolutions!

Activity—of All Kinds—Can Help Lower Blood Pressure

Data Suggest Any Activity is Better Than None for Stroke Prevention

Study Confirms Ultraprocessed Foods are Bad for Health

Recommendations to Limit Red Meat for Cardiovascular Health Upheld by Large…

Taking Care of Your Brain

Healthy Lifestyle May Support Better Brain Function—Even with Brain Changes Suggestive…

Mindfulness Training Can Help Improve Eating Patterns

Resolutions, Revisited

Consuming Plant Protein in Midlife Can Help Women Age Well

Is Olive Oil the Best Choice?

Making Time for Healthy Behaviors

Even Healthy, Normal-Weight Older Women May Benefit from a Heart-Healthy Lifestyle

• Healthy Eating
• Special Reports

The Pros and Cons of Processed Foods

The next time someone rails against the evils of processed foods—such as proponents of the current “eating clean” fad—keep in mind that “processed foods” include:

– pasteurized milk

– prewashed lettuce and spinach

– canned beans

– oatmeal

– “baby” carrots

– frozen and canned fish

– frozen fruits and vegetables

– yogurt.

“You hear the term ‘processed food’ thrown around a lot these days, but you have to use common sense,” says Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, director of Tufts’ HNRCA Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory and executive editor of the Health & Nutrition Letter . “Even though technically ‘processed,’ pasteurized milk is safer than unpasteurized. Frozen produce, because it’s picked and frozen at the peak of freshness and ‘processed’ quickly, is as nutritious as fresh or in many cases more so. And if the convenience of ripping open a bag of baby-cut carrots makes you more likely to snack on them instead of chips or cookies while preparing dinner, that’s good fallout from processing.”

The US government defines “processed food” as “any food other than a raw agricultural commodity that has been subject to processing, such as canning, cooking, freezing, dehydration or milling.” Basically, that encompasses anything that has been altered from its original state beyond basic cleaning, brushing off dirt or removing leaves and stems. Even polished apples might be considered “processed,” and peeled or pre-cut fruits are definitely processed, however minimally. Any food that contains added salt, sugar, fat or additives or that has been mixed with other ingredients is considered processed, too. (That includes something like iodized salt, which has essentially wiped out goiter in the US.)

SAFETY AND NUTRIENTS: Apart from the advantages of convenience, processed food may be safer because contaminants have been removed (as in prewashed salad greens) or destroyed (as in pasteurized milk). Many processed foods also last longer without spoiling or becoming unsafe to eat.

Cutting and chopping produce can make some nutrients more available to the body by breaking down cell walls (though it speeds deterioration of water-soluble nutrients). So can heating, including the heat of canning, although heat also destroys some vitamins: The lycopene in canned tomatoes and tomato sauces is more accessible than in fresh, uncooked tomatoes.

Freezing not only locks in the nutrients of fruits and vegetables, but makes them affordably available all year long. Frozen vegetables are easy to quickly add to a stir-fry or stew, making it more likely fruit and vegetable recommendations will be met.

Freezing makes seafood more readily available, too. Unless you live near a coast, flash-frozen seafood is the best way to meet recommendations to eat two fish meals per week.

DIETARY DOWNSIDES: Not all the news about processed foods is good, of course, or nutrition experts wouldn’t spend so much time warning against them. Food that has been highly modified, with lots of added calories, including saturated fat, sugars and starches, has helped fuel the obesity epidemic and Americans’ worst eating habits.

A recent study, in fact, sought to quantify the contribution of moderately and highly processed foods to unhealthy dietary trends. Published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition , the study analyzed purchases of packaged goods for 157,142 US households from 2000-2012, classifying the contents of more than 1.2 million products. Jennifer M. Poti, PhD, of the University of North Carolina, and colleagues concluded that highly processed foods and beverages contributed 61% of the calorie intake of those households. Moderately processed items added another 16%, for a total of more than three-quarters of average calories. Highly processed and ready-to-eat products were significantly higher in saturated fat, sugar and sodium.

What counts as a “highly processed” product? There is no official government definition. Poti and colleagues used the definition of “multi-ingredient industrially formulated mixtures processed to the extent that they are no longer recognizable as their original plant or animal source.” Among the highly processed foods that contributed the most calories in the study were refined breads, grain-based desserts, sugar-sweetened beverages, salty snacks, candy, ready-to-eat cereals, ice cream, mayonnaise, salad dressing, pasta sauce, ketchup, margarine and shortening.

“Moderately processed” foods were defined two ways: those processed only by the addition of flavors but otherwise recognizable as their original plant or animal sources, and grain products such as whole-wheat breads and cereals with no added sweeteners or fat.

But a 2012 study of processed foods in the US diet led by Heather Eicher-Miller, PhD, of Purdue University suggested that processing is not a major determinant of a food’s contribution to dietary intake. That study concluded that “no processing category contains foods that are uniformly ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy.'”

Image © Thinkstock

NO SIMPLE RULE: How can consumers decide, then, which processed foods are healthy choices and which to avoid? Some diet pundits suggest there is some magic maximum number of ingredients beyond which a food becomes overly processed, and that the shorter the ingredients list, the better. But Tufts’ Lichtenstein says that’s not a useful guideline: “A food that has more ingredients because it has small amounts of many different herbs and spices, for example, is not necessarily less healthy.”

Others advocate avoiding any foods with artificial preservatives or other additives—anything, as some put it, that your grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food. “In some cases such additives are good, preventing unwanted bacteria, mold and fungus growth,” Lichtenstein cautions. “I rely on the FDA, which has determined that these additives are safe. Making these determinations is a complex process.”

Responding to consumer concerns, some companies have reduced their use of certain artificial ingredients. In April, under pressure from the “Food Babe” blogger and an online petition with more than 350,000 signatures, Kraft said it will replace synthetic colors in its iconic macaroni and cheese with colors from natural sources such as paprika, annatto and turmeric. Regardless of whether the health concerns over Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 artificial colors are scientifically valid, the change doesn’t make boxed macaroni and cheese any less of a highly processed food: It will still be made from primarily refined grains and contain a whopping 570 milligrams of sodium (almost a quarter of the daily maximum) and only 1 gram of fiber per serving.

The popular advice to “shop the perimeter” of the supermarket also has its flaws, Lichtenstein says. “Now frozen vegetables and fruits tend to be in the middle of the grocery store. These simple old wives’ tales may have been true at one point, but supermarkets have been redesigned.”

Buying only foods labeled “organic” avoids pesticide residues, but plenty of highly processed products nonetheless boast that they contain only USDA-certified organic ingredients. The term “natural” is much less well-defined, and does not guarantee that products aren’t highly processed or packed with calories and “natural” sugar and sodium.

SHOPPING SAVVY: If such simple rules don’t work, how can you be smart about shopping for processed foods? Lichtenstein suggests focusing on this question: “Is your food diluted?” That’s the difference, for example, between a bag of plain frozen broccoli and one with broccoli in a calorie-rich sauce. Or between frozen berries and “all-natural” berry sorbet. Similarly, buying frozen fish is smart—but skip the battered fish, where the fish has been diluted with breading.

Microwavable or parboiled “minute” brown rice packages and other grains like quinoa can replace a half-hour or more of watching the pot with 90 seconds from pantry to table. Think twice, though, about packaged foods that dilute those healthy whole grains with sauces and salty seasonings.

Canned beans make sense anytime you don’t have hours to soak and cook dried beans; a quick drain and rinse gets rid of much of the added salt if you can’t find no-salt-added beans. “Baked” or “barbecued” canned beans, however, dilute the bean content with, among other things, 12-15 grams of sugar per half-cup serving.

CONVENIENT CHOICES: Sticking with less-diluted processed foods doesn’t mean you have to sacrifice convenience or spend hours at the stove. You can throw together a quick, nutritious meal from frozen precooked shrimp and vegetables; frozen meatballs and veggies tossed with whole-grain pasta; or frozen ravioli and reduced-sodium marinara sauce. Assembling the elements yourself lets you control the quantities—less sauce or meat, more vegetables, for example.

The same goes for breakfast: Quick or instant oatmeal is fine, but retain control over how much sweetener and what form of fruit goes into the bowl. A piece of whole-wheat toast spread with peanut butter is technically a “processed” choice, but much better than a toaster pastry. With a little poking around, Lichtenstein says, some good “processed” breakfast cereals, such as shredded wheat, can be found.

So don’t shy away from all processed foods. If you really have time to trim down carrots into “baby” carrots, or just enjoy the work, by all means go ahead. But that time might be better and more healthfully spent in a brisk walk around the block.

Won’t you pay a price for the convenience of meals not made entirely from scratch? Not necessarily—and especially not if you figure your time is worth something. A new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition looked at how much foods would cost factoring in the typical value of labor on the part of the home cook. Comparing 100 home recipes with 143 similar “processed recipes,” researchers found that adding the value of preparation time made homemade protein and grain dishes more “expensive.” Vegetable, fruit and dairy dishes were already cheaper using processed products; factoring in prep time reinforced this difference.

The term “processed” means something different when applied to meats—something you may want to limit in your diet. The American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) defines processed meat as “meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or addition of chemical preservatives,” and says even small amounts eaten regularly increase the risk of colorectal cancer. That includes ham, bacon, sausages and deli meats. Processed meat has also been associated with an increased risk of heart disease.It’s not clear whether nitrates and nitrites added to processed meats as preservatives are solely to blame, so buying deli meats free of these chemicals may not protect you. While noting that “an occasional hot dog at a baseball game or ham on a holiday is unlikely to increase cancer risk,” the AICR advises limiting routine processed meat consumption.

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Ultraprocessed Foods: Are They Bad for You?

BY CARRIE MACMILLAN July 10, 2024

Frozen pizza, ready-to-eat meals, instant noodles, and many store-bought breads are just a few examples of what some consider “ultraprocessed foods,” or products that contain a long list of ingredients, chemical additives, and little to no “whole” foods.

Lately, the ultraprocessed-food (or UPF) category is gaining attention due, in part, to studies that link them to health issues. A review , published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in 2024 , looked at 45 studies involving almost 10 million participants. The review authors suggest that eating more ultraprocessed foods is linked to a higher risk of dying from any cause and has ties to 32 health conditions, including heart disease, mental health disorders, type 2 diabetes , and other problems.

The studies in the review relied on a widely used classification system called NOVA that was developed by academic researchers in Brazil and breaks foods into four categories: unprocessed or minimally processed; processed culinary ingredients; processed; and ultraprocessed. (Examples of these foods appear below.)

The NOVA system , created in 2009, is recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and other groups, but not by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). It is hard to gain consensus on how to classify different types of processed foods, and there is debate among public policy experts, nutritionists, and the food industry on this topic.

Avlin Imaeda, MD , a gastroenterologist in Yale Medicine’s Metabolic Health & Weight Loss Program , says she talks to her patients about ultraprocessed foods—items that have “industrial formulations, chemicals, refined oils, fats, starches, and proteins,” which make them last longer and are highly palatable, or pleasant-tasting.

“That makes people eat more of them, and they are more calorie-dense, meaning people are consuming more calories even when they are eating smaller amounts of food,” she says.

Dr. Imaeda says she isn’t surprised by the review findings, but notes that the incidence rates of the related health conditions are small. “One issue with the studies they looked at is that the relative risks are not very high. They are 1.1-fold to 1.5-fold increases. However, if you are talking about a serious health problem, such as a heart attack , a 1.5-fold increase is still a lot,” she says. “Many of these studies are also not of the highest quality, which is, in part, because those are difficult to do. There are studies where they surveyed patients, everything from asking them to report what they consumed the previous day to asking them how often they eat certain foods, as opposed to a randomized clinical trial, where the diet is controlled by researchers.”

Another problem is that most of the foods people eat are ultraprocessed, Dr. Imaeda says. In fact, UPFs make up 67% of calories consumed by children and teenagers in the U.S., according to the review.

“If everyone is eating lots of ultraprocessed foods, researchers don’t have a baseline group of people who don’t eat them to compare them to,” she says. “Plus, how many UPFs have a direct risk of these medical conditions versus how many of them are related to obesity? We know that obesity raises your risk of diabetes , cardiovascular disease, and various cancers .”

Below, we talk more with Dr. Imaeda about ultraprocessed foods and what the recent review reveals about their possible health effects.

What are ultraprocessed foods?

To understand what ultraprocessed foods are, it helps to understand how NOVA classifies foods. Those groups are as follows:

Group 1: Unprocessed or minimally processed foods .

Unprocessed, or “natural,” foods are obtained directly from plants or animals and do not undergo any alteration. Minimally processed foods are natural foods that have been cleaned, had inedible or unwanted parts removed, or have been ground, dried, fermented, pasteurized, frozen, or gone through other processes that subtract part of the food. No oil, fat, sugar, salt, or other substances have been added to foods in this category.

Examples include fresh or pasteurized fruit or vegetable juices with no added sugar or other substances; eggs; dried fruits; lentils, chickpeas, and beans; nuts; fresh and dried herbs and spices; fresh or pasteurized milk and yogurt without sugar; fresh or frozen meat, poultry, and seafood.

Group 2: Processed culinary ingredients

These are products extracted from natural foods using processes including pressing, grinding, crushing, pulverizing, and refining. They are used in homes and restaurants to season and cook food.

Examples include oils made from seeds, nuts, and fruits (olive oil, corn oil, sunflower oil); white, brown, and other types of sugar and molasses from cane or beets; honey; maple syrup; butter; lard; and refined or coarse salt.

(The use of processed culinary ingredients does not make meals nutritionally unbalanced as long as they are used in moderation in food preparation for natural or minimally processed foods.)

Group 3: Processed foods

These are foods from Group 1 that are made outside the home with salt, sugar, oil, or substances from Group 2 added to preserve them or make them more palatable. These items are derived directly from food and are recognized versions of the original food. Most processed foods have two or three ingredients.

Examples include freshly made cheeses; bacon and beef jerky; salted or sugared nuts or seeds; canned or bottled legumes or vegetables; unpackaged, freshly made breads; tomato extract, pastes, or concentrates (with salt and/or sugar); and fruits in sugar syrup.

Group 4: Ultraprocessed foods

These are industrial formulations made mostly or completely from substances (oil, fat, sugar, starch, and protein) extracted from food or derived from hydrogenated fats or modified starches. They can also be synthesized in laboratories with flavor enhancers, colors, and additives to make them highly palatable. These typically have five or more (usually many more) ingredients.

Examples include sweetened and flavored yogurts; breakfast cereals and bars; cola, energy, and sports drinks; pastries, cakes, cookies, and cake mixes; instant soups; ice cream and frozen desserts; packaged breads, hamburger, and hot dog buns; and pre-prepared pizzas, pasta, hamburgers, sausages, chicken nuggets, and fish sticks.

Group 1 foods are a small proportion of or even absent from ultraprocessed products.

The authors of the BMJ study note that the NOVA classification system for UPFs could be improved as it is complex, and some items may be misclassified.

How do ultraprocessed foods affect your health?

While it is hard to definitively say how and why ultraprocessed foods can lead to health problems, the BMJ researchers have theories. For example, in the review, researchers say ultraprocessed foods might replace more nutritious meal options, including fresh fruits and vegetables.

A diet composed mainly of ultraprocessed foods also exposes people to unhealthy additives and increases the risk of chronic inflammatory diseases, they add.

“A growing body of data shows instances of exposure to combinations of multiple additives, which may have potential ‘cocktail effects’ with greater implications for human health than exposure to a single additive,” the review authors say. “Finally, ultraprocessed foods can contain contaminants with health implications that migrate from packaging materials, such as bisphenols, microplastics, mineral oils, and phthalates.”

What are some highlights from the studies in the review?

Many of the studies of ultraprocessed foods examined in the BMJ review were based on surveys and other less rigorous methods, but there was one high-quality randomized controlled study, Dr. Imaeda notes.

This study , published in 2019, involved 20 healthy, overweight adults staying in a medical facility. Participants received either an ultraprocessed or unprocessed diet for 14 days and then switched to the other type for an additional two weeks. They were given three meals a day and told to eat as much or as little as they wanted within 60 minutes. The meals were matched for total calories, fat, carbohydrates, protein, fiber, sugars, and sodium. In one arm of the study, 83.5% of calories came from ultraprocessed foods; in the other arm, 83.3% came from unprocessed foods.

Study participants in the UPF group consumed 500 more calories per day than those on the unprocessed diet. The UPF group gained an average of two pounds, and the unprocessed group lost two pounds during the two-week study period.

“All of these findings were pretty significant,” Dr. Imaeda says. “They also found that people eating ultraprocessed foods were eating it faster. We know that if you absorb calories quickly, it lights up the reward center in the brain. Plus, these foods are more calorie-dense.”

How can you identify ultraprocessed foods?

According to a 2019 article published in Public Health Nutrition , one practical way to identify an ultraprocessed product is to see if its list of ingredients contains at least one item on the NOVA ultraprocessed food group list .

This group includes either food substances never or rarely used in kitchens (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated or interesterified oils, and hydrolyzed proteins) or classes of additives designed to make the final product palatable or more appealing (such as flavors, flavor enhancers, colors, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners, and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling, and glazing agents).

“I would say that if the package has multiple ingredients and you can't identify some of them, it’s probably best to avoid it,” Dr. Imaeda says.

What can be done about ultraprocessed foods?

While it’s wise for people to know more about ultraprocessed foods and their possible negative effects, it’s important to remember that foods in some of the other NOVA categories carry risks, too. For example, red meat may not be processed, but it is linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain cancers.

And while some foods, such as homemade chocolate chip cookies, may contain minimally processed ingredients, that doesn’t mean they are healthy or that you should eat a lot of them, Dr. Imaeda cautions.

Rather, Dr. Imaeda tells patients to think about moderation.

“Even if you go to a bakery or local market, you might find high-fructose corn syrup in breads. While that isn’t ideal, that doesn’t mean everyone needs to make their own bread and pasta at home,” she says. “But because we don’t fully understand the impact processed foods and added chemicals can have on our bodies, we should be wary of various chemicals and artificial sweeteners. We know they impact the brain and its reward system. If you have a sweet tooth, you might be reaching for those foods more.”

However, Dr. Imaeda acknowledges that eating healthy foods is not easy as they are more expensive and less convenient than many processed and ultraprocessed foods.

“I don’t know what the right answer is. I think there are ways to encourage people to eat healthier foods, but we need to ensure that people who have food insecurity [limited or uncertain access to adequate food] can afford them and make it easy for them to obtain. Plus, we need to educate people and make healthy foods available in daycare facilities and schools,” she says. “We want to be careful about not making it harder for people to get food in general.”

More news from Yale Medicine

Advertisement

Processed Foods – Getting Back to The Basics

• Nutrition and Obesity (S McClave and E Omer, Section Editors)
• Published: 13 October 2021
• Volume 23 , article number  20 , ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Osman Mohamed Elfadil   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0240-6453 1 ,
• Jalpan Patel 1 ,
• Ishani Patel 1 ,
• Matthew W. Ewy 2 ,
• Ryan T. Hurt 1 , 2 , 3 &
• Manpreet S. Mundi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7902-3544 1  

1077 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Purpose of Review

Real-world data suggested that more than half of daily energy intake is coming from processed and ultra-processed foods in most western countries. This high consumption of processed foods is of concern, given laboratory and epidemiological studies’ findings that prove overwhelming harms of processed foods on human health.

Recent Findings

Data demonstrate that consumption of processed foods is increasing with more reports linking ultra-processed foods to various medical conditions; namely, obesity, metabolic syndrome, atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases, and certain types of cancer. Scientific community’s understanding of the mechanisms and substances by which processed foods are affecting human health is expanding. Holistic approach to the current critical situation is advisable and requires collaborative public health strategies.

The current review describes recent classification of processed foods and highlights the pertinent findings in the relationship between processed foods and health. It also outlines key clinical data relevant to the topic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Evidence-based European recommendations for the dietary management of diabetes

Consumption of red meat and processed meat and cancer incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

High intake of ultra-processed food is associated with dementia in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • of importance •• of major importance.

Weaver CM, Dwyer J, Fulgoni VL, et al. Processed foods: contributions to nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;99(6):1525–42. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.114.089284 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Moubarac J-C, Levy RB, Louzada MLC, Jaime PC. The UN decade of nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(1):5-17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980017000234 . This article provides comprehensive review of concerns with UPFs and highlighting the importance of universally-adopted classification.

Elizabeth L, Machado P, Zinöcker M, Baker P, Lawrence M. Ultra-processed foods and health outcomes: a narrative review. Nutrients. 2020;12(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12071955

Steele EM, Baraldi LG, Louzada ML da C, Moubarac J-C, Mozaffarian D, Monteiro CA. Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the US diet: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(3):e009892. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009892 . This work highlights significant presence of UPFs and added sugar in typical American diet.

Fiolet T, Srour B, Sellem L, et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. BMJ. 2018;360. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k322

Gibney MJ, Forde CG, Mullally D, Gibney ER. Ultra-processed foods in human health: a critical appraisal. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017;106(3):717–24. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.117.160440 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Paglia L. The sweet danger of added sugars. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2019;20(2):89. https://doi.org/10.23804/ejpd.2019.20.02.01 .

Publication : USDA ARS. Accessed January 26, 2021. https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=297084

Srour B, Fezeu LK, Kesse-Guyot E, et al. Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé). BMJ. 2019;365. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1451

Chen X, Zhang Z, Yang H, et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health outcomes: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Nutr J. 2020;19(1):86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-020-00604-1 . This work demonstrates increasing consumption of UPFs .

Gupta S, Hawk T, Aggarwal A, Drewnowski A. Characterizing Ultra-Processed Foods by Energy Density, Nutrient Density, and Cost. Front Nutr. 2019;6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2019.00070

Boyland EJ, Nolan S, Kelly B, et al. Advertising as a cue to consume: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of acute exposure to unhealthy food and nonalcoholic beverage advertising on intake in children and adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;103(2):519–33. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.115.120022 .

Gamboa-Gamboa T, Blanco-Metzler A, Vandevijvere S, Ramirez-Zea M, Kroker-Lobos MF. Nutritional content according to the presence of front of package marketing strategies: the case of ultra-processed snack food products purchased in Costa Rica. Nutrients. 2019;11(11):E2738. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11112738 .

Fagerberg P, Langlet B, Oravsky A, Sandborg J, Löf M, Ioakimidis I. Ultra-processed food advertisements dominate the food advertising landscape in two Stockholm areas with low vs high socioeconomic status. Is it time for regulatory action? BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1717. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-8090-5

Vandevijvere S, De Ridder K, Fiolet T, Bel S, Tafforeau J. Consumption of ultra-processed food products and diet quality among children, adolescents and adults in Belgium. Eur J Nutr. 2019;58(8):3267–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-018-1870-3 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kapczuk P, Komorniak N, Rogulska K, Bosiacki M, Chlubek D. Highly processed food and its effect on health of children and adults. Postepy Biochem. 2020;66(1):23–9. https://doi.org/10.18388/pb.2020_309 .

Pagliai G, Dinu M, Madarena MP, Bonaccio M, Iacoviello L, Sofi F. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health status: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Nutr. 2021;125(3):308–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114520002688 .

Askari M, Heshmati J, Shahinfar H, Tripathi N, Daneshzad E. Ultra-processed food and the risk of overweight and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Int J Obes 2005. 2020;44(10):2080–2091. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-020-00650-z

Donat-Vargas C, Sandoval-Insausti H, Rey-García J, et al. High consumption of ultra-processed food is associated with incident dyslipidemia: a prospective study of older adults. J Nutr. Published online May 26, 2021:nxab118. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxab118

Juul F, Vaidean G, Parekh N. Ultra-processed Foods and Cardiovascular Diseases: Potential Mechanisms of Action. Adv Nutr Bethesda Md. Published online May 3, 2021:nmab049. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmab049

Juul F, Vaidean G, Lin Y, Deierlein AL, Parekh N. Ultra-processed foods and incident cardiovascular disease in the framingham offspring study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77(12):1520–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.01.047 .

Zhong G-C, Gu H-T, Peng Y, et al. Association of ultra-processed food consumption with cardiovascular mortality in the US population: long-term results from a large prospective multicenter study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-021-01081-3 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bonaccio M, Di Castelnuovo A, Costanzo S, et al. Ultra-processed food consumption is associated with increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the Moli-sani Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2021;113(2):446–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa299 .

Rey-García J, Donat-Vargas C, Sandoval-Insausti H, et al. Ultra-processed food consumption is associated with renal function decline in older adults: a prospective cohort study. Nutrients. 2021;13(2):428. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020428 .

Ivancovsky-Wajcman D, Fliss-Isakov N, Webb M, et al. Ultra-processed food is associated with features of metabolic syndrome and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Liver Int Off J Int Assoc Study Liver. Published online June 26, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.14996

Romaguera D, Fernández-Barrés S, Gracia-Lavedán E, et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and drinks and colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer. Clin Nutr Edinb Scotl. 2021;40(4):1537-1545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2021.02.033 . The relationship between diet and cancer has always been a n area of research interest. With increasing consumption of UPFs currently, such studies become more important and of exceptional value in understanding cancer development .

Boada LD, Henríquez-Hernández LA, Luzardo OP. The impact of red and processed meat consumption on cancer and other health outcomes: Epidemiological evidences. Food Chem Toxicol. 2016;92:236–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2016.04.008 .

Demeyer D, Mertens B, Smet SD, Ulens M. Mechanisms linking colorectal cancer to the consumption of (processed) red meat: A review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2016;56(16):2747–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2013.873886 .

da Rocha KF, de Araújo CR, de Morais IL, Padrão P, Moreira P, Ribeiro KD da S. Commercial foods for infants under the age of 36 months: an assessment of the availability and nutrient profile of ultra-processed foods. Public Health Nutr. Published online April 12, 2021:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021001555

Araya C, Corvalán C, Cediel G, Taillie LS, Reyes M. Ultra-processed food consumption among chilean preschoolers is associated with diets promoting non-communicable diseases. Front Nutr. 2021;8: 601526. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.601526 .

Moreno-Galarraga L, Martín-Álvarez I, Fernández-Montero A, Santos Rocha B, Ciriza Barea E, Martín-Calvo N. Consumption of ultra-processed products and wheezing respiratory diseases in children: The SENDO project. An Pediatr. Published online May 26, 2021:S2341–2879(21)00099–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpede.2020.05.012

Silva CA, Santos I da S, Shivappa N, Hebert JR, Crivellenti LC, Sartorelli DS. The role of food processing in the inflammatory potential of diet during pregnancy. Rev Saude Publica. 2019;53:113. doi: https://doi.org/10.11606/S1518-8787.2019053001154

Gomes C de B, Malta MB, Benício MHD, Carvalhaes MA de BL. Consumption of ultra-processed foods in the third gestational trimester and increased weight gain: a Brazilian cohort study. Public Health Nutr. Published online July 20, 2020:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980020001883

Paulino DSM, Pinho-Pompeu M, Assumpção D, Kasawara KT, Surita FG. Dietary intake profile in high-risk pregnant women according to the degree of food processing. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med Off J Eur Assoc Perinat Med Fed Asia Ocean Perinat Soc Int Soc Perinat Obstet. Published online September 13, 2020:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2020.1818213

Graciliano NG, da Silveira JAC, de Oliveira ACM. The consumption of ultra-processed foods reduces overall quality of diet in pregnant women. Cad Saude Publica. 2021;37(2): e00030120. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00030120 .

Adams J, Hofman K, Moubarac J-C, Thow AM. Public health response to ultra-processed food and drinks. The BMJ. 2020;369: m2391. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2391 .

Rauber F, Campagnolo P, Hoffman D, Vitolo MR. Consumption of ultra-processed food products and its effects on children’s lipid profiles: A longitudinal study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2014;25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2014.08.001

Louzada ML da C, Martins APB, Canella DS, et al. Ultra-processed foods and the nutritional dietary profile in Brazil. Rev Saúde Pública. 2015;49. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049006132

Moubarac J-C, Martins APB, Claro RM, Levy RB, Cannon G, Monteiro CA. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and likely impact on human health evidence from Canada. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(12):2240–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980012005009 .

Monteiro CA, Levy RB, Claro RM, de Castro IRR, Cannon G. Increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods and likely impact on human health: evidence from Brazil. Public Health Nutr. 2010;14(1):5–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980010003241 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Mendonça R de D, Lopes ACS, Pimenta AM, Gea A, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, Bes-Rastrollo M. Ultra-processed food consumption and the Incidence of hypertension in a mediterranean cohort: The Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra Project. Am J Hypertens. 2017;30(4):358–366. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajh/hpw137

Scaranni P de O da S, Cardoso L de O, Chor D, et al. Ultra-processed foods, changes in blood pressure and incidence of hypertension: the Brazilian longitudinal study of adult health (ELSA-Brasil). Public Health Nutr. Published online March 4, 2021:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898002100094X

Martínez Steele E, Juul F, Neri D, Rauber F, Monteiro CA. Dietary share of ultra-processed foods and metabolic syndrome in the US adult population. Prev Med. 2019;125:40–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.05.004 .

Tavares LF, Fonseca SC, Garcia Rosa ML, Yokoo EM. Relationship between ultra-processed foods and metabolic syndrome in adolescents from a Brazilian Family Doctor Program. Public Health Nutr. 2012;15(1):82–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980011001571 .

Fardet A. Minimally processed foods are more satiating and less hyperglycemic than ultra-processed foods: a preliminary study with 98 ready-to-eat foods. Food Funct. 2016;7(5):2338–46. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6FO00107F .

Srour B, Fezeu LK, Kesse-Guyot E, et al. Ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes among participants of the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(2):283. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5942 .

Levy RB, Rauber F, Chang K, et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and type 2 diabetes incidence: A prospective cohort study. Clin Nutr. 2021;40(5):3608–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2020.12.018 .

Domingo JL, Nadal M. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red meat and processed meat: A review of scientific news since the IARC decision. Food Chem Toxicol. 2017;105:256–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2017.04.028 .

González N, Marquès M, Nadal M, Domingo JL. Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010–2020) evidences. Food Res Int Ott Ont. 2020;137: 109341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109341 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Dyer O. Food fight: controversy over red meat guidelines rumbles on. BMJ. 2020;368: m397. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m397 .

Hermans KEPE, van den Brandt PA, Loef C, Jansen RLH, Schouten LJ. Meat consumption and cancer of unknown primary (CUP) risk: results from The Netherlands cohort study on diet and cancer. Eur J Nutr. Published online June 21, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-021-02600-5

Alves Ribeiro RR, Rolim de Brito I, Andrade Souza K, de Castro Souza L, Almeida de Oliveira T, Weller M. Risk of colorectal cancer in a brazilian population is differentially associated with the intake of processed meat and vitamin E. Nutr Cancer. Published online May 17, 2021:1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01635581.2021.1926519

Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, et al. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(16):1599–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1 .

Hammerling U, Laurila JB, Grafström R, Ilbäck N-G. Consumption of red/processed meat and colorectal carcinoma: possible mechanisms underlying the significant association. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2016;56(4):614–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2014.972498 .

Samraj AN, Pearce OMT, Läubli H, et al. A red meat-derived glycan promotes inflammation and cancer progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112(2):542–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417508112 .

Alisson-Silva F, Kawanishi K, Varki A. Human risk of diseases associated with red meat intake: Analysis of current theories and proposed role for metabolic incorporation of a non-human sialic acid. Mol Aspects Med. 2016;51:16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mam.2016.07.002 .

Lippi G, Mattiuzzi C, Cervellin G. Meat consumption and cancer risk: a critical review of published meta-analyses. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016;97:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.11.008 .

Inoue-Choi M, Sinha R, Gierach GL, Ward MH. Red and processed meat, nitrite, and heme iron intakes and postmenopausal breast cancer risk in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Int J Cancer. 2016;138(7):1609–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29901 .

Boldo E, Castelló A, Aragonés N, et al. Meat intake, methods and degrees of cooking and breast cancer risk in the MCC-Spain study. Maturitas. 2018;110:62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.01.020 .

Tamanna N, Mahmood N. Food processing and maillard reaction products: effect on human health and nutrition. Int J Food Sci. 2015;2015: 526762. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/526762 .

Nooshkam M, Varidi M, Bashash M. The Maillard reaction products as food-born antioxidant and antibrowning agents in model and real food systems. Food Chem. 2019;275:644–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.09.083 .

Iriondo-DeHond A, Elizondo AS, Iriondo-DeHond M, et al. Assessment of healthy and harmful maillard reaction products in a novel coffee cascara beverage: Melanoidins and acrylamide. Foods. 2020;9(5):620. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9050620 .

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kohlmeier M. Heterocyclic amines. In: Kohlmeier M, ed. Nutrient Metabolism. Food Science and Technology. Academic Press; 2003:85–92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012417762-8.50006-5

Nadeem HR, Akhtar S, Ismail T, et al. Heterocyclic aromatic amines in meat: formation, isolation, risk assessment, and inhibitory effect of plant extracts. Foods. 2021;10(7):1466. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10071466 .

Carere A. Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of acrylamide: a critical review. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2006;42(2):144–55.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Zhang Y, Huang M, Zhuang P, et al. Exposure to acrylamide and the risk of cardiovascular diseases in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003–2006. Environ Int. 2018;117:154–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.04.047 .

Zyzak DV, Sanders RA, Stojanovic M, et al. Acrylamide formation mechanism in heated foods. J Agric Food Chem. 2003;51(16):4782–7. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf034180i .

National Research Council (US) Committee on diet N. food additives, contaminants, carcinogens, and mutagens. national academies press (US); 1983. Accessed July 4, 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216714/

Food additives. Accessed July 4, 2021. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/food-additives

Nutrition C for FS and A. Overview of food ingredients, additives & colors. FDA. Published online February 20, 2020. Accessed July 4, 2021. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/overview-food-ingredients-additives-colors

Singh K, Ahluwalia P. Effect of monosodium glutamate on lipid peroxidation and certain antioxidant enzymes in cardiac tissue of alcoholic adult male mice. J Cardiovasc Dis Res. 2012;3(1):12–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-3583.91595 .

Maltais-Payette I, Allam-Ndoul B, Pérusse L, Vohl M-C, Tchernof A. Circulating glutamate level as a potential biomarker for abdominal obesity and metabolic risk. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2019;29(12):1353–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2019.08.015 .

Zhang Q, Bai Y, Yang Z, Tian J, Meng Z. The molecular mechanisms of sodium metabisulfite on the expression of KATP and L-Ca2+ channels in rat hearts. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;72(3):440–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.05.021 .

Chassaing B, Koren O, Goodrich JK, et al. Dietary emulsifiers impact the mouse gut microbiota promoting colitis and metabolic syndrome. Nature. 2015;519(7541):92–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14232 .

Feferman L, Bhattacharyya S, Oates E, et al. Carrageenan-free diet shows improved glucose tolerance and insulin signaling in prediabetes: A randomized Pilot Clinical Trial. J Diabetes Res. 2020;2020: e8267980. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8267980 .

Liauchonak I, Qorri B, Dawoud F, Riat Y, Szewczuk MR. Non-nutritive sweeteners and their implications on the development of metabolic syndrome. Nutrients. 2019;11(3):644. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11030644 .

Trasande L, Shaffer RM, Sathyanarayana S. Food additives and child health. Pediatrics. 2018;142(2): e20181410. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-1410 .

Konieczna A, Rutkowska A, Rachon D. Health risk of exposure to bisphenol A (BPA). Rocz Państw Zakładu Hig. 2015;66(1). Accessed January 26, 2021. http://agro.icm.edu.pl/agro/element/bwmeta1.element.agro-081819c5-4b5d-4cf5-ba97-09bafda17554

Vandenberg LN, Chahoud I, Heindel JJ, Padmanabhan V, Paumgartten FJR, Schoenfelder G. Urinary, circulating, and tissue biomonitoring studies indicate widespread exposure to Bisphenol A. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;118(8):1055–70. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0901716 .

Ma Y, Liu H, Wu J, et al. The adverse health effects of bisphenol A and related toxicity mechanisms. Environ Res. 2019;176: 108575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108575 .

vom Saal FS, Vandenberg LN. Update on the health effects of Bisphenol A: overwhelming evidence of harm. Endocrinology. 2021;162(3). https://doi.org/10.1210/endocr/bqaa171

Dumitrascu MC, Mares C, Petca R-C, et al. Carcinogenic effects of bisphenol A in breast and ovarian cancers (Review). Oncol Lett. 2020;20(6):1–1. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2020.12145 .

Viggiani MT, Polimeno L, Di Leo A, Barone M. Phytoestrogens: dietary intake, bioavailability, and protective mechanisms against colorectal neoproliferative lesions. Nutrients. 2019;11(8):1709. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081709 .

Zaheer K, Akhtar MH. An updated review of dietary isoflavones: Nutrition, processing, bioavailability and impacts on human health. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017;57(6):1280–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2014.989958 .

Hu XJ, Song WR, Gao LY, Nie SP, Eisenbrand G, Xie MY. Assessment of dietary phytoestrogen intake via plant-derived foods in China. Food Addit Contam Part Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2014;31(8):1325–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2014.930562 .

Martínez Steele E, Monteiro CA. Association between dietary share of ultra-processed foods and urinary concentrations of phytoestrogens in the US. Nutrients. 2017;9(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9030209

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

Osman Mohamed Elfadil, Jalpan Patel, Ishani Patel, Ryan T. Hurt & Manpreet S. Mundi

Division of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

Matthew W. Ewy & Ryan T. Hurt

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

Ryan T. Hurt

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manpreet S. Mundi .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest.

Ryan T. Hurt is a consultant for Nestle. Manpreet S. Mundi has research grants from Realfood blends, Nestle, and Fresenius Kabi and is on advisory board for Baxter. Osman Mohamed Elfadil, Jalpan Patel, and Ishani Patel have no relevant conflict of interest to report.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Nutrition and Obesity

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mohamed Elfadil, O., Patel, J., Patel, I. et al. Processed Foods – Getting Back to The Basics. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 23 , 20 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-021-00828-z

Download citation

Accepted : 28 September 2021

Published : 13 October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-021-00828-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Processed food
• Ultra-processed foods
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 07 February 2022

Nutrition research challenges for processed food and health

• Michael J. Gibney   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5250-361X 1 &
• Ciarán G. Forde   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4001-9182 2  

Nature Food volume  3 ,  pages 104–109 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

2772 Accesses

41 Citations

16 Altmetric

Metrics details

Existing highly processed food (HPF) classification systems show large differences in the impact of these foods on biochemical risk factors for disease. If public health nutrition is to consider the degree of food processing as an important element of the link between food and health, certain gaps in research must be acknowledged. Quantifying the food additive exposure derived from HPFs is a task made challenging by the lack of data available on the occurrence and concentration of additives in food and the degree to which the natural occurrence of additives in unprocessed foods confounds exposure estimates. The proposed role of HPFs in health outcomes could also be associated with altered nutrient profiles. Differences exist within and between HPF classification systems in this regard and there are conflicting data on the impact of controlling for nutrient intake. Furthermore, research is needed on how the sensory aspects of HPFs contribute to energy intake. Current data suggest that high energy intake rate may be the mechanism linking HPFs and increased energy intake. A high priority now is to clarify the basis of definitions used to categorize foods as highly processed and, in a constructive sense, to distinguish between the contributions of nutrients, additives and sensory properties to health.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: from global food systems to individual exposures and mechanisms

Food Compass is a nutrient profiling system using expanded characteristics for assessing healthfulness of foods

Food additives and paho’s nutrient profile model as contributors’ elements to the identification of ultra-processed food products.

Pagliai, G. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health status: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Nutr. 125 , 308–318 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Juul, F., Vaidean, G., Lin, Y., Deierlein, A. L. & Parekh, N. Ultra-processed foods and incident cardiovascular disease in the Framingham Offspring Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 77 , 1520–1531 (2021).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Du, S., Kim, H. & Rebholz, C. M. Higher ultra-processed food consumption is associated with increased risk of incident coronary artery disease in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. J. Nutr. 151 , 3746–3754 (2021).

Fiolet, T. et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. Br. Med. J. 360 , k322 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Rico-Campà, A. et al. Association between consumption of ultra-processed foods and all cause mortality: SUN prospective cohort study. Br. Med. J. 365 , 1949 (2019).

Lichtenstein, A. H. et al. 2021 dietary guidance to improve cardiovascular health: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 144 , e472–e487 (2021).

Moubarac, J. C., Parra, D. C., Cannon, G. & Monteiro, C. A. Food classification systems based on food processing: significance and implications for policies and actions: a systematic literature review and assessment. Curr. Obes. Rep. 3 , 256–272 (2014).

Poti, J. M., Mendez, M. A., Ng, S. W. & Popkin, B. M. Is the degree of food processing and convenience linked with the nutritional quality of foods purchased by US households? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 101 , 1251–1262 (2015).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Slimani, N. et al. Contribution of highly industrially processed foods to the nutrient intakes and patterns of middle-aged populations in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 63 , S206–S225 (2009).

Eicher-Miller, H. A., Fulgoni, V. L. & Keast, D. R. Processed food contributions to energy and nutrient intake differ among US children by race/ethnicity. Nutrients 7 , 10076–10088 (2015).

Eicher-Miller, H. A., Fulgoni, V. L. & Keast, D. R. Contributions of processed foods to dietary intake in the US from 2003–2008: a report of the Food and Nutrition Science Solutions Joint Task Force of the academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, American Society for Nutrition, institute of Food Technologists, and International Food Information Council. J. Nutr. 142 , 2065S–2072S (2012).

Martinez-Perez, C. et al. Use of different food classification systems to assess the association between ultra-processed food consumption and cardiometabolic health in an elderly population with metabolic syndrome (PREDIMED-Plus Cohort). Nutrients 13 , 2471–2489 (2021).

Bleiweiss-Sande, R. et al. Robustness of food processing classification systems. Nutrients 11 , 1344 (2019).

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Monteiro, C. A., Cannon, G., Lawrence, M., Costa Louzada, M. L. & Pereira Machado, P. Ultra-processed Foods, Diet Quality and Human Health (FAO, 2019).

Google Scholar  

Rauber, F. et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and chronic non-communicable diseases-related dietary nutrient profile in the UK (2008–2014). Nutrients 10 , 587 (2018).

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Steele, E. M., Popkin, B. M., Swinburn, B. & Monteiro, C. A. The share of ultra-processed foods and the overall nutritional quality of diets in the US: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study. Popul. Health Metrics 15 , 6 (2017).

Costa Louzada, M. L. et al. Ultra-processed foods and the nutritional dietary profile in Brazil. Rev. Saude Publica 49 , 38 (2015).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Moubarac, J. C., Batal, M., Louzada, M. L., Martinez Steele, E. & Monteiro, C. A. Consumption of ultra-processed foods predicts diet quality in Canada. Appetite 108 , 512–520 (2017).

Julia, C. et al. Contribution of ultra-processed foods in the diet of adults from the French NutriNet-Santé study. Public Health Nutr. 21 , 27–37 (2018).

Solans, M. et al. Consumption of ultra-processed food and drinks and chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the MCC-Spain study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 , 1–12 (2021).

Rico-Campa, A. et al. Association between consumption of ultra-processed foods and all-cause mortality: SUN prospective cohort study. Br. Med. J. 365 , 1949 (2019).

Griffin, J., Albaloul, A., Kopytek, A., Elliott, P. & Frost, G. Effect of ultra-processed food intake on cardiometabolic risk is mediated by diet quality: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Nutr. Prev. Health. 4 , 174–180 (2021).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gupta, S., Hawk, T., Aggarwal, A. & Drewnowski, A. Characterizing ultra-processed foods by energy density, nutrient density, and cost. Front. Nutr. 6 , 70 (2019).

Rolls, B. J. The relationship between dietary energy density and energy intake. Physiol. Behav. 97 , 609–615 (2009).

Lustig, R. H. Processed food—an experiment that failed. JAMA. Pediatr. 171 , 212–214 (2017).

Buckley, J. P. et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and exposure to phthalates and bisphenols in the US national health and nutrition examination survey, 2013–2014. Environ. Int. 131 , 105057 (2019).

Drewnowski, A. Perspective: identifying ultra-processed plant-based milk alternatives in the USDA branded food products database. Adv .Nutr. 12 , 2068–2075 (2021).

Gilsenan, M. B., Lambe, J. & Gibney, M. J. Irish National Food Ingredient Database: application for assessing patterns of additive usage in foods. Food Addit. Contam. 19 , 1105–1115 (2002).

Chazelas, E. et al. Exposure to food additive mixtures in 106,000 French adults from the NutriNet-Santé cohort. Sci. Rep. 11 , 1–21 (2021).

Choline: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals (NIH, accessed December 2021); https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Choline-HealthProfessional/

Penniston, K. L., Nakada, S. Y., Holmes, R. P. & Assimos, D. G. Quantitative assessment of citric acid in lemon juice, lime juice, and commercially-available fruit juice products. J. Endourol. 22 , 567–570 (2008).

McCance, R. A., Widdowson, E. M., Paul, A. A. & Southgate, D. A. T. McCance and Widdowson’s The Composition of Foods (HM Stationery Office, 1978).

Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a Request from the European Commission to Perform a Scientific Risk Assessment on Nitrate in Vegetables. EFSA J. 689 , 1–79 (2008).

Baker, R. A. Reassessment of some fruit and vegetable pectin levels. J Food Sci. 62 , 2225–2299 (2006).

Porter, T., Wharton, M. A. & Bennett, B. B. Evaluation of carotene content of fresh and cooked spinach. Food Res. 12 , 133–141 (1947).

Yun, S. S. et al. Naturally occurring benzoic, sorbic, and propionic acid in vegetables. Food Addit. Contam. B 12 , 167–174 (2019).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Park, S. Y. et al. Evaluation of natural food preservatives in domestic and imported cheese. Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 36 , 531–537 (2016).

Aguilar, F. et al. EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food.Scientific opinion on the re‐evaluation of iron oxides and hydroxides (E 172) as food additives. EFSA J. 13 , 4317 (2015).

Aguilar, F. et al. EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food.Scientific opinion on the re‐evaluation of erythorbic acid (E 315) and sodium erythorbate (E 316) as food additives. EFSA J. 14 , 4360 (2016).

Aguilar, F. et al. EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food. Re‐evaluation of sodium nitrate (E 251) and potassium nitrate (E 252) as food additives. EFSA J. 15 , e04787 (2017).

Tralau, T. et al. A prospective whole-mixture approach to assess risk of the food and chemical exposome. Nat. Food 2 , 463–468 (2021).

Srour, B. et al. Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study (NutriNet Santé). BMJ 365 , 1451 (2019).

Narula, N. et al. Association of ultra-processed food intake with risk of inflammatory bowel disease: prospective cohort study. BMJ 374 , 1554 (2021).

Sandoval-Insausti, H. Ultra-processed food consumption and incident frailty: a prospective cohort study of older adults. J. Gerontol. A 75 , 1126–1133 (2020).

Gómez-Donoso, C. et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and the incidence of depression in a Mediterranean cohort: the SUN Project. Eur. J. Nutr. 59 , 1093–1103 (2020).

Zaretsky, J. et al. Ultra-processed food targets bone quality via endochondral ossification. Bone Res. 9 , 14 (2021).

de Souza, M. S., Vaz, J. D. S., Martins-Silva, T., Bomfim, R. A. & Cascaes, A. M. Ultra-processed foods and early childhood caries in 0–3-year-olds enrolled at primary healthcare centers in Southern Brazil. Public Health Nutr. 24 , 3322–3330 (2021).

Scaranni, P. O. D. S. et al. Ultra-processed foods, changes in blood pressure and incidence of hypertension: the Brazilian longitudinal study of adult health (ELSA-Brasil). Public Health Nutr. 24 , 3352–3360 (2021).

Melo, B., Rezende, L., Machado, P., Gouveia, N. & Levy, R. Associations of ultra-processed food and drink products with asthma and wheezing among Brazilian adolescents. Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 29 , 504–511 (2018).

Nestares, T. et al. Influence of ultra-processed foods consumption on redox status and inflammatory signaling in young celiac patients. Nutrients 13 , 156 (2021).

Silva, C. A. et al. The role of food processing in the inflammatory potential of diet during pregnancy. Rev Saude Publica 53 , 113 (2019).

Machado, P. P. et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and obesity in the Australian adult population. Nutr. Diabetes 10 , 39 (2020).

Chapman, N. A., Jacobs, R. J. & Braakhuis, A. J. Role of diet and food intake in age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 47 , 106–127 (2019).

Dhillon, J., Running, C. A., Tucker, R. M. & Mattes, R. D. Effects of food form on appetite and energy balance. Food Qual. Prefer. 48 , 368–375 (2016).

Hall, K. D. et al. Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake. Cell Metab. 32 , 67–77 (2020).

Yeomans, M. R. Taste, palatability and the control of appetite. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 57 , 609–615 (1998).

Rolls, B. J., Rolls, E. T., Rowe, E. A. & Sweeney, K. Sensory specific satiety in man. Physiol. Behav. 27 , 137–142 (1981).

Forde, C. G., Mars, M. & de Graaf, K. Ultra-processing or oral processing? A role for energy density and eating rate in moderating energy intake from processed foods. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 4 , 19 (2020).

Forde, C. G. From perception to ingestion; the role of sensory properties in energy selection, eating behavior and food intake. Food Qual. Prefer. 66 , 171–77. (2018).

Bolhuis, D. P. & Forde, C. G. Application of food texture to moderate oral processing behaviours and energy intake. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 106 , 445–456 (2020).

Teo, P. S., van Dam, R. M., Whitton, C., Tan, L. W. L. & Forde, C. G. Consumption of foods with higher energy intake rates is associated with greater energy intake, adiposity, and cardiovascular risk factors in adults. J. Nutr. 151 , 370–378 (2021).

Breslin, P. A. & Spector, A. C. Mammalian taste perception. Curr. Biol. 18 , R148–R155 (2008).

Small, D. M. & Di Feliceantonio, A. G. Processed foods and food reward. Science 363 , 346–347 (2019).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Martin, C. & Issanchou, S. Nutrient sensing: what can we learn from different tastes about the nutrient contents in today’s foods? Food Qual. Prefer. 71 , 185–196 (2019).

Teo, P. S., Tso, R., van Dam, R. M. & Forde, C. G. Taste of modern diets: the impact of food processing on nutrient sensing and dietary energy intake. J. Nutr. 152 , 200–210 (2021).

Breen, C., Ryan, M., Gibney, M. J., Corrigan, M. & O’Shea, D. Glycemic, insulinemic, and appetite responses of patients with type 2 diabetes to commonly consumed breads. Diabetes Educ. 39 , 376–386 (2013).

Aston, L. M., Gambell, J. M., Lee, D. M., Bryant, S. P. & Jebb, S. A. Determination of the glycaemic index of various staple carbohydrate-rich foods in the UK diet. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 62 , 79–85 (2008).

Reidy, K. C. et al. Food consumption patterns and micronutrient density of complementary foods consumed by infants fed commercially prepared baby foods. Nutr. Today 53 , 68–78 (2018).

Gibney, M. J. et al. Towards an evidence-based recommendation for a balanced breakfast—a proposal from the International Breakfast Research Initiative. Nutrients 10 , 1540 (2018).

Li, K. et al. Dietary fat intakes in Irish adults in 2011: how much has changed in 10 years? Br. J. Nutr. 115 , 1798–1809 (2016).

Azaïs-Braesco, V. et al. A review of total & added sugar intakes and dietary sources in Europe. Nutr. J. 16 , 6 (2017).

Get the Facts: Added Sugars (CDC, accessed December 2021); https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/data-statistics/added-sugars.html

Mozaffarian, D. et al. Food Compass is a nutrient profiling system using expanded characteristics for assessing healthfulness of foods. Nat. Food 2 , 809–818 (2021).

Monteiro, C. A. & Cannon, G. Product reformulation will not improve public health. World Nutr. 3 , 406–434 (2012).

Scrinis, G. & Monteiro, C. A. Ultra-processed foods and the limits of product reformulation. Public Health Nutr. 21 , 247–252 (2018).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Food and Health, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Michael J. Gibney

Sensory Science and Eating Behaviour, Division of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands

Ciarán G. Forde

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Gibney .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

M.J.G. has engaged in paid and non-paid consultancy for a wide range of food companies that manufacture processed foods. He has provided online presentations on ultraprocessed foods to the staff of Unilever and Mondelez. C.G.F. is currently a paid member of the Kerry Health and Nutrition Institute.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Food thanks Eileen Kennedy and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gibney, M.J., Forde, C.G. Nutrition research challenges for processed food and health. Nat Food 3 , 104–109 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00457-9

Download citation

Received : 03 November 2021

Accepted : 22 December 2021

Published : 07 February 2022

Issue Date : February 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00457-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

On the value of food systems research.

Nature Food (2024)

Preferences and Reasoning of 14-15 year-old Students in Relation to Natural or Synthetic Products in Different Contexts: Influence of an Instructional Module

• Mario Caracuel González
• Alicia Benarroch Benarroch
• Ángel Blanco López

Research in Science Education (2024)

Ultra-processed Food and Obesity: What Is the Evidence?

• Samuel J. Dicken
• Rachel L. Batterham

Current Nutrition Reports (2024)

Machine learning prediction of the degree of food processing

• Giulia Menichetti
• Babak Ravandi
• Albert-László Barabási

Nature Communications (2023)

From language models to large-scale food and biomedical knowledge graphs

• Gjorgjina Cenikj
• Lidija Strojnik
• Tome Eftimov

Scientific Reports (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Advertisement

Analysis and Health

Is ultra-processed food unhealthy here's why no one can agree.

While ultra-processed food is the latest buzzword in nutrition, the scientific evidence for how it affects our health continues to point in different directions. Why can't researchers just tell us the perfect diet?

By Grace Wade

8 July 2024

Ultra-processed food is often high in fat, sugar and salt

GMVozd/Getty Images

Nutrition advice is often fickle. In the 1990s, nutritionists blamed fats for rising obesity rates . Then, carbohydrates became the culprit in the early 2000s. Now, the refrain is to eat whole foods and avoid ultra-processed ones. Why can’t we get a straight answer on what we should be eating?

The trouble is that simply opting for foods with fewer and less-processed ingredients doesn’t guarantee a healthier diet. In fact, as a recent meeting of the American Society for Nutrition in Chicago demonstrates, studies on ultra-processed food (UPF)…

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox! We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

To continue reading, subscribe today with our introductory offers

No commitment, cancel anytime*

Offer ends 2nd of July 2024.

*Cancel anytime within 14 days of payment to receive a refund on unserved issues.

Inclusive of applicable taxes (VAT)

Existing subscribers

More from New Scientist

Explore the latest news, articles and features

Artificial flavours released by cooking aim to improve lab-grown meat

Environment

'butter' made from co2 could pave the way for food without farming.

Subscriber-only

Mathematics

Physicists figured out the ideal container size for pistachio shells.

The science behind making perfect puff pastry

Popular articles.

Trending New Scientist articles

Processed Foods: A Closer Look

Processed food has a bad reputation as a diet saboteur. It's blamed for obesity rates, high blood pressure and the rise of Type 2 diabetes. But processed food is more than instant meals, potato chips and drive-thru hamburgers. It may be a surprise to learn that whole-wheat bread, homemade soup or a chopped apple also are processed foods.

While some processed foods should be consumed less often, many actually have a place in your daily routine.

What Is Processed Food?

"Processed foods" include those that have been cooked, canned, frozen, packaged or nutritionally altered by fortifying, preserving or preparing it in different ways. In other words, any time we cook, bake or prepare a food, we're creating a processed food.

Processed foods fall on a spectrum from minimally to heavily processed:

• Minimally processed foods — such as bagged spinach, cut vegetables and roasted nuts — often are simply prepared in advance for convenience.
• Other foods with less processing include those processed at their peak to lock in nutritional quality and freshness like canned tomatoes, frozen fruits and vegetables, and canned tuna.
• The next set of processed foods would be those with ingredients added for flavor and texture (which may include sweeteners, spices, oils, colors and preservatives), including items like pasta sauce, yogurt and cake mixes.
• Ready-to-eat foods — such as crackers, cereal and deli meat — are more heavily processed.

Shop Smart When Selecting Processed Foods

Certain processed foods can help you eat more nutrient-dense foods. Milk and juices may be fortified with calcium and vitamin D, and breakfast cereals may be fortified with iron and fiber. Canned fruit (packed in water or its own juice) is a good option when fresh fruit is not available. And minimally processed foods such as pre-cut vegetables and pre-washed, bagged spinach are quality convenience foods for busy people.

If you want to minimize your intake of processed food, aim to do more food prep and cooking at home. Base meals on whole foods including vegetables, beans and whole grains.

Look for Hidden Sugar and Sodium

Some processed foods may contain higher amounts of added sugar and sodium, so it’s always helpful to check the Nutrition Facts Label.

Added Sugars

Added sugars are any type of sugar that is not naturally occurring in a specific food. Instead, these sugars are added during processing. Added sugars aren't just those in desserts or sodas. Sugars are added to bread to give it a golden brown hue, as well as many jarred pasta sauces and cereals. They can also show up in items that are already sweet – like juice or canned fruit.

The Nutrition Facts Label specifies how many grams of added sugars are in a product, as well as the total amount of sugar. Another way to look for added sugars is to review a product’s ingredient list and look for added sugars among the first two or three ingredients (these include sugar, maltose, brown sugar, corn syrup, cane sugar, honey and fruit juice concentrate). Ingredients are listed by weight so the first two or three ingredients are the most prevalent.

Learn more about the Nutrition Facts Label by visiting the  FDA website . 

Processed foods also can be major contributors of sodium in our diets because salt is commonly added to preserve foods and extend shelf life. Most canned vegetables, soups and sauces have added salt. Choose foods labeled no salt added, low-sodium or reduced-sodium to decrease the amount of salt you're consuming from processed foods.

Find a Nutrition Expert

Looking for credible nutrition information and recommendations? The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' network of credentialed food and nutrition practitioners are ready to help!

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS article

Toward a science-based classification of processed foods to support meaningful research and effective health policies.

• 1 Paula R. Trumbo Consulting, Mount Pleasant, SC, United States
• 2 School of Health Sciences, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, United States
• 3 Bell Institute of Health and Nutrition, General Mills, Golden Valley, MN, United States
• 4 Department of Food Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, United States
• 5 Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
• 6 Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, IL, United States
• 7 Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
• 8 Division of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands
• 9 Institute of Food and Health, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
• 10 USDA-ARS Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Grand Forks, ND, United States
• 11 Department of Applied Health Science, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, United States
• 12 Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences, Washington, DC, United States
• 13 Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD, United States
• 14 Conagra Brands, Chicago, IL, United States
• 15 Department of Nutritional Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States
• 16 Griffith Foods, Inc., Alsip, IL, United States
• 17 College of Health and Human Services, School of Exercise and Nutritional Sciences, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, United States
• 18 The Kraft Heinz Company, Chicago, IL, United States

Processed foods have been part of the American diet for decades, with key roles in providing a safe, available, affordable, and nutritious food supply. The USDA Food Guides beginning in 1916 and the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) since 1980 have included various types of commonly consumed processed foods (e.g., heated, fermented, dried) as part of their recommendations. However, there are multiple classification systems based on “level” of food processing, and additional evidence is needed to establish the specific properties of foods classified as “highly” or “ultra”-processed (HPF/UPFs). Importantly, many foods are captured under HPF/UPF definitions, ranging from ready-to-eat fortified whole grain breakfast cereals to sugar-sweetened beverages and baked goods. The consequences of implementing dietary guidance to limit all intake of foods currently classified as HPF/UPF may require additional scrutiny to evaluate the impact on consumers’ ability to meet daily nutrient recommendations and to access affordable food, and ultimately, on health outcomes. Based on a meeting held by the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences in May 2023, this paper provides perspectives on the broad array of foods classified as HPF/UPFs based on processing and formulation, including contributions to nutrient intake and dietary patterns, food acceptability, and cost. Characteristics of foods classified as UPF/HPFs are considered, including the roles and safety approval of food additives and the effect of food processing on the food matrix. Finally, this paper identifies information gaps and research needs to better understand how the processing of food affects nutrition and health outcomes.

1 Introduction

Processing of foods has existed since prehistoric times when foods were fermented, preserved with salt, sun dried, and cooked using various types of what are now considered traditional methods. Among the chief methods of food preservation to prevent bacterial and other microorganism growth were the addition of salt and sugar.

There are various definitions of food processing. In the US, one definition of processed food is “… any food other than a raw agricultural commodity and includes raw agricultural commodity that has been subjected to processing, such as canning, cooking, freezing, or milling” ( 1 ). The Institute of Food Technologists also recognizes methods such as storing, filtering, fermenting, extracting, concentrating, microwaving, and packaging, as processing methods ( 2 ). There are various food processing and packaging methods that are used both by the food industry and in home food preparation ( Table 1 ) ( 3 ). These processes improve taste, improve or preserve nutritional content, preserve product integrity and quality, and confer other food attributes (both potentially positive and negative) by transformation through processing and formulation. The “degree” of processing can vary greatly, with degree referring to the extent to which the end-result has been modified from an agricultural product. The terms “highly processed” or “ultra-processed” are not always correlated with the amount of processing or number of processing steps to which a food is subjected. For example, flours and dairy products undergo numerous processing operations (steps) but are often classified as minimally processed ( 6 ). The formulation of foods (the recipe) is distinct from processing operations and can include incorporation of ingredients such as fat, carbohydrates, proteins, spices, herbs, flavors, vitamins and minerals for fortification and substances approved for use in food products that enhance safety and decrease spoilage.

Table 1 . Methods used to process and package foods at home and/or during industrial production ( 3 – 5 ).

Within the past 15 years, various food classification systems have been developed to categorize foods based on what is described as the degree of processing, but the categorizations typically refer less to steps of processing and more to formulation (ingredients or added nutrients or additives) ( Table 2 ) ( 7 – 12 ). Foods that are considered “highly processed” (HPF) have various characteristics depending upon the defining authority. Health Canada considers HPF to be “processed or prepared foods and drinks that add excess sodium, sugars, or saturated fat to the diet,” thus focusing on nutrient composition and food formulation rather than characteristics related to processing or processing steps ( 7 ).

Table 2 . Food classification systems used to categorize processed food.

Several different food classification systems including Nova ( 8 ), the University of North Carolina ( 9 ), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer ( 10 ) do not specifically mention nutrient composition, but characteristics include industrial-level processing. This description of processing is not detailed further, for example, with type or number of processing steps or if the processing method differs from one used in home cooking ( Table 2 ). The Nova classification system first introduced the term “ultra-processed” to capture both industrial scale food processing and certain aspects of food formulation, and others, such as the Siga system, have adopted and adapted the Nova approach ( 13 ). While there are multiple classification systems for HPF/ultra processed foods (UPFs), here, we focus largely on the Nova system since it has been commonly utilized for research purposes and policy development in some countries. In addition, although the Nova system incorporates considerations for the broad societal impacts of the food system, this paper’s perspective is a focus on the health impacts of the foods as consumed, in alignment with observational and intervention studies that associate consumption of foods with health outcomes.

Since 2014, some national dietary guidelines have included the Nova food classification system as a framework for dietary recommendations, including several Latin American countries, Israel, and Malaysia, among others ( 14 – 20 ) ( Table 3 ). Other national guidelines, such as those from Canada, recommend limiting HPFs ( 21 ). In contrast, the United Kingdom Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) recently concluded that food classification systems based on processing level are inconsistent or lack clarity on the various food components of concern ( 22 ). In particular, the Nova categories (defined below) were considered broad, leading to discordance with other nutrient or food-based recommendations. Furthermore, the SACN noted that it is unclear to what extent observed associations between UPFs and adverse health outcomes are explained by established relationships between nutritional factors and health outcomes because nutrient content was not considered, and potential confounding factors may not be accounted for ( 22 ). More recently, the 2023 Nordic Council of Ministers reviewed evidence linking foods classified as UPFs with adverse health outcomes and concluded that recommendations specific to the UPFs concept would overlap or conflict with other guidance on various types of processed foods. For example, foods high in added sugars, such as sugar-sweetened beverages and baked goods, “should be limited” and whole grain cereals should be preferentially used ( 23 ).

Table 3 . National-level dietary recommendations and statements related to processed or ultra-processed foods.

The 2025–2030 US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) is the first one that will specifically conduct a systematic literature review on the question: “What is the relationship between consumption of dietary patterns with varying amounts of ultra-processed foods and growth, body composition, and risk of obesity?” ( 24 ). However, the categorization of foods as UPFs will not be considered as part of the Food Pattern Modeling approach because operationalizing the “UPF” categorization is challenged by varying definitions and limitations of their application to the USDA food composition databases ( 25 ). The DGA have yet to recommend guidelines based on any level of food processing, aside from the recommendation to choose less processed forms of meats and poultry. However, in the case of processed meats, guidance is based on nutritional content (e.g., fat) or the presence of some food additives (e.g., nitrites and salt). As the DGAC follows a systematic evidence-review process, the approach to evaluation of studies that vary in the ways that foods are classified according to Nova will provide data driven insights.

Despite growing interest in limiting the consumption of foods classified as HPF/UPFs, there remain significant knowledge gaps, understanding the mechanisms by which this broad category of foods may play a causal role in health, beyond the known associations between nutrients to limit and diet-related non-communicable diseases. This paper, in part, includes information from a cross-stakeholder meeting organized by the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences (IAFNS) held in May 2023, “Considerations for Formulation and Degree of Processing in Food Classification Systems that Support Research.” It presents perspectives on the use of classification systems that may or may not incorporate processing and formulation, and various outstanding questions related to their use in constructing diets that support health. Specifically, perspectives are provided on the contribution of foods classified as HPF/UPFs to the nutrient intake and dietary patterns of Americans. Also discussed are the available studies on HPF/UPFs and disease risk and body weight, the roles and safety approval of food additives in the American diet, the effect of food processing on the food matrix, and consumer use of processed foods in the American diet. Finally, information gaps and research needs are identified to better understand how food processing and formulation affect nutrition and health outcomes, to ensure that policies based on food classification systems that incorporate processing are best positioned for positive impact.

2 Highly processed and ultra-processed food classification systems

Various schemes to identify foods classified as HPF/UPFs have been developed with the intent to improve the nutritional quality and healthfulness of diets ( 26 ) ( Table 2 ). The terminology and description of each category within these classification systems varies. As described in more detail by de Araujo et al. ( 26 ), the foods represented in the individual food categories of these systems also vary. For example, the percent contribution of certain foods categories as HPFs/UPFs by a Portuguese adult population using different food classification systems ranges from 10 to 47% ( 26 ).

The food classification system based on processing that has received the most attention is Nova ( 27 ). Nova is the only internationally recognized classification system that uses the “ultra” terminology to capture both processing and formulation. With the Nova system, there are four categories of foods based on degree of processing ( 8 ). These categories capture foods, food products, culinary ingredients, and spices. Formulation of foods, i.e., combining raw materials (e.g., eggs, milk, and flour), ingredients (sugars, fats, oils), and food additives, is a major component of the Nova description of UPFs. As such, a food that is considered minimally processed according to other definitions may be classified as a UPF if it contains a food additive. However, the intention and function of the food additive is taken into consideration when classifying foods according to Nova. Additives included for the function of preservation can place foods into Group 3 and additives provided for the function of “cosmetic reasons” place foods into Group 4 (UPF). Foods that contain additives for enrichment purposes only are placed into Group 1 ( 11 , 27 ). One can appreciate the challenges of determining additive function because this type of information is often not provided on food labels, and a single additive can have multiple roles (e.g., antioxidants can protect flavor, preserve color, and inhibit the formation of potentially toxic compounds). Further, differences in function of an additive would likely not translate to a differential biological response relevant to disease risk. Foods classified as UPFs are heterogeneous and undergo varying processing treatments, have different formulations, and a wide range of nutrition composition. Currently, there is a lack of a universally accepted definition for either HPFs or UPFs. Recently, more detailed guidance on how best to classify foods according to Nova has been published ( 28 ), however the information needed for accurate classification is often not available (e.g., the function of the food additive), thus requiring subjective application in research or diet evaluation. These nuances have implications for translation to policy and consumer messaging.

To improve the nutritional profile (or improve nutrient density) of foods and beverages, food manufacturers have innovated, reformulated, and introduced new foods to reduce, for example, the content of sodium, sugar, or saturated fat, as well as increase nutrients and food groups to encourage, including fruits, vegetables, vitamins, minerals, dietary fiber, and whole grains. This reformulation has required application of many technologies and processes. By nature of the Nova UPFs definition, reformulation of a food classified as UPFs will not necessarily result in a non-UPF product (e.g., lowering sugar content by the removal of sugars or replacement of sugars with non-caloric sweeteners in a sugars-sweetened beverage or the reduction of saturated fat from dairy foods) ( 29 ). Therefore, a food can remain classified as a UPF even after reformulation to reduce energy, saturated fats, added sugars or sodium ( 30 ). In parallel, the reformulation efforts and required processing toward positive nutrients and food groups for any given product could result in its categorization as a UPF. For example, yogurt that is sweetened with a low-calorie sweetener is considered UPF even though the caloric content is similar to unsweetened yogurt. However, nutrient content is not inherently related to industrial processing ( 31 ), as in fact with Nova, sodium, saturated fat, and sugars are not limited in home-prepared foods.

3 Contribution of foods classified as highly processed and ultra-processed to nutrient intake and dietary patterns aligned with the dietary guidelines for Americans

The Nova UPF category captures some foods that are nutrient-dense using validated scoring systems. Using two different nutrient-density scoring systems (i.e., the Health Star Rating and Nutri-Score), 21% of foods classified as UPFs received a high/healthy rating; whereas only 6% were classified as being unhealthy, with other foods falling elsewhere along the continuum ( 32 ). Minimally processed (Nova 1) foods generally scored healthier than UPFs (Nova 4). Processed foods (Nova 3), scored healthier than culinary ingredients (Nova 2), however this comparison is somewhat limited as culinary ingredients are rarely consumed on their own. Food Compass Score (FCS) is a nutrient profiling system that scores foods between 1 to 100 (being most healthful). Using FCS, 47% of Nova 4 foods had FCS < 30, 40% had FCS of 31–69, and 12.8% has FCS > 70 ( 32 ). These examples show that the Nova categories do not necessarily correlate with the nutritional quality of a product when measured using existing validated scoring systems for nutrient density. It should be noted that FCS has been the subject of some criticism ( 33 ).

Several researchers have applied the Nova system to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and its food survey companion database, What We Eat in America (WWEIA). Based on a 2001–2018 NHANES analysis, the percent of foods classified as UPFs consumed by Americans ranged between 40 and 60 percent, depending on the age category ( 34 ). This is not surprising as it has been estimated that over 70% of the US food supply is ultra-processed when using the Nova definition ( 35 ), whereas only 4% of the food supply is not processed or is minimally processed ( 32 ). The 2020–2025 DGA notes that the average Healthy Eating Index score for Americans ages 2 years and older is 59 of a possible 100 ( 36 ). Acknowledging that categorization of foods in WWEIA according to Nova is complicated by the lack of needed detail, Martinez Steele et al. ( 28 ) recently released guidance to standardize approaches, the application of which may reduce subjectivity in future studies.

The 2020–2025 DGA includes the USDA Food Patterns (e.g., Healthy U.S.-Style Eating Pattern), which provide the recommended daily amount for each food group (e.g., vegetables, fruits) and food subgroup (e.g., dark-green, red, and orange vegetables, legumes, starchy vegetable, other vegetables) ( 36 ). These food groups and subgroups are determined by considering the types and proportions of foods Americans typically consume but in nutrient-dense forms and appropriate amounts ( 36 ). The USDA Food Patterns are based on meeting the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) for individual nutrients. Many of these DRIs are based on meeting the daily individual requirement of an essential nutrient (e.g., vitamin C and iron) while others are based on reduction of chronic disease risk (e.g., dietary fiber and cardiovascular disease, sodium, and high blood pressure).

The USDA Food Patterns provide a model of how individual foods can be consumed on a daily or weekly basis and within calorie limits to achieve the DRIs for the various nutrients. The Nova UPF food category is broad and encompasses a variety of foods and food groups with diverse nutrient compositions. Although no evidence for this is currently available, removing or limiting this broad food category from the American diet could also affect the intake of nutrients that are lacking or limited in consumer’s diets, as noted below. Researchers at USDA-ARS Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center evaluated the feasibility of developing a menu that aligns with a healthy dietary pattern (i.e., Healthy U.S.-Style Eating Pattern) from the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans aiming to include 80 percent or more of calories from UPFs as defined by Nova. The investigators were able to design a diet with 91 percent of calories sourced from foods classified as UPF, as part of a 2,000 calorie diet for seven days, that met the 2020–2025 DGA recommendations and received a high Healthy Eating Index score (i.e., 86 out of 100) ( 37 ). However, the score for sodium was poor at zero, and reflected higher intakes of sodium than the average American currently consumes. It is possible that using low-sodium options for some of the UPFs modeled could improve the sodium component score. This also highlights opportunities for reductions in the DGA-designated nutrients to limit in processed foods available to consumers in the US. This study suggests that more work is needed to ensure that Nova or other systems based on “processing” are aligned with other validated metrics for a healthy diet, particularly considering the modern food supply.

Foods classified as Nova UPFs include foods that contain added ingredients that serve various roles in the finished product (i.e., deliver color, flavor, provide stability, etc.) ( 8 ). The nutritional value of a food is often associated with the use of food additives during the formulation and processing of the product as these ingredients can directly deliver nutrients (enrichment and fortification), preserve the stability of nutrients and bioactives through processing and shelf-life, create gluten-free products, replace allergens, and meet nutrient requirements for infants. Ingredients, including nutrients, may be added to foods for various technical or public health benefits at levels that are safe for the food’s intended use ( 38 ). Important nutrients that are added to foods as food additives for nutritional and public health benefits include iodine to salt ( 39 ), folic acid to certain foods classified as UPF including breakfast cereals ( 40 ) and vitamin D to fruit juices ( 41 ), soy products ( 41 , 42 ), and milk ( 41 ). Vitamin D is naturally abundant primarily in fatty fish. Therefore, vitamin D fortification expands the number of foods, some of which are classified as UPF (e.g., yogurt with sweeteners, breakfast cereals) that are contributors to intake of this nutrient and enhances the opportunity for wider accessibility for this shortfall nutrient among Americans ( 43 ). Furthermore, various added dietary fibers (e.g., soluble corn fiber, inulin), which have beneficial physiological effects, contribute to the total dietary fiber intake from foods ( 44 ). While it is voluntary to enrich food products, many flours that are in food classified as UPFs are enriched and therefore must meet the standards of identity for an enriched product to contain certain levels of thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, iron, and folic acid ( 45 ). Ready-to-eat cereals are an example of a food classified as a UPF that is usually fortified with a variety of vitamins and minerals and has an impact on the nutrient intake of Americans. Approximately 19% of US adults consume ready-to-eat cereals and were reported to have a similar level of energy intake as non-eaters, but significantly higher intake of dietary fiber, and several vitamins and minerals, such as calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, zinc, vitamin A, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B 6 , folate, vitamin B 12 , and vitamin D ( 46 ).

4 Foods classified as ultra-processed and chronic disease risk

There have been several meta-analyses conducted on observational studies that have evaluated the association between UPF consumption and risk of different chronic diseases, health-related conditions, and mortality. These meta-analyses reported a positive association between UPF intake and risk of obesity ( 47 , 48 ), type 2 diabetes ( 48 – 50 ), hypertension ( 51 ), metabolic syndrome ( 47 ), cardiovascular events ( 52 ), and all-cause mortality ( 48 , 52 , 53 ). When the risk of type 2 diabetes was evaluated for individual UPF subgroups, the findings were mixed ( 30 ). Sauces, spreads, condiments, sugar and artificially sweetened beverages, and ready-to-eat dishes were associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes; whereas, cereals, packaged sweet snacks and desserts, savory snacks, yogurt and dairy-based desserts were associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes. It is important to note that the majority of available observational studies to date were either of cross-sectional or prospective cohort design, were not designed to answer the same question and adjusted for different covariables complicating the validity of combining them in meta-analyses, even if there was moderate or less heterogeneity. In addition, the Nova definition has evolved over time to include increasing detail and nuance as the classification system underwent review and was questioned by the scientific community. Details related to the types of preservatives, additives, or ingredients with included examples that denote a food as processed versus ultra-processed were added over time. Though these details improve the definition, they potentially change how the research community applies Nova to dietary data. For example, the original definition in 2009 uses the term “cosmetic additives” but does not go into great detail of what that category includes. More recent definitions describe additives such as emulsifiers and processing aids, among others, and researchers may not have considered “cosmetic additives” in older research because these additives also serve functional purposes ( 54 ).

Categorization in these studies often requires subjective judgement due to lack of needed information for accurate Nova classification as to which foods would fall into the UPF category, creating significant variation in UPF intake estimations. As previously mentioned, more standardized approaches have been proposed to harmonize application of the Nova scheme going forward ( 8 ).

Some foods that fall into the HPF/UPF category tend to be energy dense and relatively high in saturated fat, sugar, and sodium. Some of the observational studies on HPF/UPF and adult mortality, obesity, and health outcomes did not adjust for covariables such as energy intake, energy density, or for nutrients to limit, such as sodium and saturated fat that are also present in unprocessed foods. However, the majority of the associations between UPF intake and these outcomes remained significant and unchanged after making the necessary adjustments ( 55 ). None of the prospective cohorts used in a meta-analysis on UPF intake and risk of CVD mortality adjusted for saturated fat intake nor were the necessary adjustments made ( 53 ). As another example, of the nine studies included in the meta-analysis on UPF consumption and hypertension risk, only one study adjusted for sodium intake (urinary sodium) ( 51 ). While it has been reported that the association between UPF intake and health-related outcomes is mediated by diet quality and the effects are lost when diet is appropriately controlled for ( 56 ), a review of prospective cohorts noted that the adverse consequences of UPF consumption are independent of dietary quality or patterns ( 55 ). Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether there are health risks specific to UPF intake beyond recommendations to reduce sodium, saturated fat, and added sugars, and there is an opportunity for further examination of this question. Furthermore, the measured associations relied on the amount of UPF intake only and did not consider unprocessed or minimally processed food, including their nutrients and food components, as part of a total diet ( 54 ).

It is unclear whether the often-reported significant associations between HPF/UPF consumption and adverse health outcomes are the result of food processing or food composition (i.e., formulation) or factors which are already well known. For example, with increased intake of HPF/UPFs that are high in nutrients-to-limit (sodium, saturated fat, and or added sugars), a positive association would be expected between sodium intake and risk of hypertension, saturated fat intake and blood cholesterol (a marker for risk of cardiovascular disease), and added sugars and increased energy intake (with may impact weight and therefore risk of type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome) because the causal evidence for these relationships are well-established. However, according to Nova, certain ingredients such as butter and coconut oil are classified as “processed culinary ingredients” (Group 2). Although these ingredients include well-accepted “nutrients-to-limit” such as added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium, when used in home-prepared foods, their intake may not be accounted for in analyses that examine associations between intake of Nova 4 foods and health. This points to the opportunity for improved alignment with existing and well-established knowledge about nutrients-to-limit and health.

Consumption of foods classified as Nova 4 has been associated with lower incomes ( 57 ) and lower per calorie diet costs ( 58 ). Lower cost diets are likely to be selected by groups of lower socioeconomic status ( 59 ). Some Nova 4 foods may be more cost-effective sources of nutrients than less-processed options ( 60 ). While some studies have adjusted for income ( 61 – 63 ), income had a limited influence on UPF intake. Because lower-income population groups have higher rates of adverse health outcomes compared to higher-income groups ( 64 ), income is an important covariable to be included in future studies. Additional investigation could help tease out the role of HPF/UPF specifically compared to other factors that impact the health of lower-income subgroups.

Finally, because observational studies are hypothesis-generating and unable to establish causality, only well-designed clinical trials can address key outstanding questions. Additional research is needed to establish the role of food additives (nutritional and non-nutritional), individual food ingredients, the role of overall diet quality, and various types of food processes in the health outcomes that have been associated with intake of foods classified as HPF/UPF.

5 Sensory, hedonic, and energy density contributions to energy intake from UPFs

To date, one clinical trial has been conducted to compare energy intakes between minimally and ultra-processed diets, and related changes to body weight ( 65 ). This study was of cross-over design and conducted on 20 men and women who were offered UPFs or minimally processed foods ad libitum for 2 weeks each. The findings indicated a net increase in energy intake of 500 kcal per day when consuming the ultra-processed diet compared to the minimally processed diet. Although this trial was not designed to establish causal mechanisms, there has been speculation on the potential mechanisms driving observed differences in energy intake ( 66 – 68 ). No significant differences in metabolic markers of health were observed between the two diets, which has led to speculation that the putative mechanisms are linked to the sensory properties and eating behaviors associated with the UPF foods that influence meal size. Research has shown that meal size is most directly influenced by a food’s palatability, energy density, portion size, and the rate at which it is consumed (g/min or kcal/min) ( 69 ). The two diets in the Hall et al. ( 65 ) trial were designed to be matched for energy from fat, sugar, sodium, dietary fiber and overall diet energy density; however, when beverages were excluded, there were significant differences in energy density which was higher for the UPF diet (1.36 vs. 1.09 kcal/g, p  < 0.0001) ( 70 ). The higher energy density of the non-beverage foods in the UPF diet likely contributed to the observed excess energy intake, and extensive research to date supports a role for energy density in promoting sustained increases in energy intake ( 71 ). While there were no significant differences in participant’s average rated palatability between the foods in the UPF and minimally processed diets, a subsequent secondary analysis reported that the UPF diet contained more items classified as “hyperpalatable” and these could have stimulated intake ( 72 ). Foods that can be consumed more quickly are known to promote greater ad libitum energy intake ( 73 ) and deliver lower satiety per kcal consumed ( 74 ). The UPF diet in the trial by Hall et al. ( 65 ) was consumed significantly faster ( p  < 0.001) than the minimally processed diet, and when this faster eating rate was combined with the higher energy density of the UPF foods, the energy intake rate increased by 50% compared to the minimally processed diet. Higher energy density and more rapid eating rates have been shown to associate with greater daily energy intakes ( 75 , 76 ), yet there is a wide variability in the eating rate and energy density across all levels of processing ( 77 ). A follow-up-controlled ad libitum feeding trial tested the relative influence of degree of processing (ultra- vs. minimally processed) and meal texture-based differences in eating speed (fast vs. slow) on food intake. The study demonstrated that softer food textures that could be consumed at a faster rate were responsible for 21% increased food intake (grams) and 26% greater energy intake across both minimally and ultra-processed meals ( 78 ). Further research is now underway to formally test the role of eating rate in moderating energy intakes from ultra-processed diets ( 79 ). Findings to date suggest that energy density, food form/texture, associated eating rate, and individual differences in meal preferences are likely to be associated with the higher energy intakes reported in the clinical trial conducted by Hall et al. ( 65 ). More controlled feeding trials are needed to quantify the relative influence of these factors and identify mechanisms that can explain the observed differences in food intake between minimally versus ultra-processed diets.

6 Approved food additives and contaminants in highly/ultra-processed formulations: roles and safety assessment

Food additives are highly varied. Some, like cinnamon, are commonly found in home kitchens, whereas others are not. Importantly, additives are ingredients, and do not indicate a level of processing. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved or not objected to the addition of thousands of nutrients and other compounds to foods for various functional purposes ( 38 ). These additives include table salt, sugars, fats, spices, flavorings, preservatives, starches, fatty acids, and caffeine, as well as those listed as examples in Monteiro et al. ( 80 ) as indicators of Nova category 4 foods, such as hydrolyzed proteins, soy protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein, various forms of added sugars, dextrose, soluble or insoluble fiber, hydrogenated or inter-esterified oil, flavor enhancers, colors, and emulsifiers, among other ingredients. Food additives are carefully evaluated by FDA for safety and regulated or are considered generally recognized as safe (also called GRAS) among qualified experts. The safety reviews require an exposure analysis of the food additive in the US population to understand current intakes and the contribution of the food additive to total intake levels. Federal regulations require evidence that each substance is safe at its intended level of use before it may be added to foods. Furthermore, all additives are subject to ongoing safety reviews as scientific understanding and methods of testing continue to improve. If new information becomes available on the safety of a food additive, the FDA re-evaluates the data for making a new determination. As one example, in 2018, FDA revoked approval of 6 synthetic flavoring substances and enhancers because of evidence for cancer in laboratory animals ( 81 ). Conversely, FDA maintained the safety of aspartame after recent re-examination ( 82 ).

It has been stated that foods classified as UPFs contain contaminants, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and acrylamide, which are associated with adverse health effects ( 83 , 84 ). These contaminants, however, are produced at any level of processing, performed at the industrial level or through home food preparation and the Nova or other systems do not provide information on the levels of contaminants for each category to understand the distinction. In fact, home-cooked prepared foods can contain higher levels of acrylamide than highly processed foods ( 85 ). Generally, acrylamide levels in foods are highly variable, depending upon factors such as agricultural practices, food preparation, and cooking method, and data are not adequate to point specifically to foods classified as UPF as the culprit ( 86 ). A significant advancement in these discussions would include identification of specific components of foods classified as HPF/UPFs that are associated with potential negative health outcomes, to include differentiation and quantification of adverse nutrients, food additives and contaminants.

In addition to ongoing safety testing of food additives, future studies should also consider evaluating effects on the microbiome, once a microbiome associated with better health is established. Food additive emulsifiers have been linked to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) ( 87 ) and understanding the impact of such food additives on IBD could provide valuable mechanistic information. Furthermore, there is observational data demonstrating an association between the consumption of emulsifiers and increased risk of certain cancers ( 88 ).

Highly/ultra-processed foods are typically sold in packaging of which the form and composition is highly variable. Because food is in contact with materials used in packaging, assessment of human exposure to these materials through consumption of packaged foods is of importance. A recent study that focused on baby food containers and reusable food pouches showed that nanoplastics were released into foods after 6 months at room temperature or refrigeration and several-fold more after microwaving ( 89 ). Although the health implications of various levels of exposure to micro- and nanoplastics (MNP) requires additional research, microplastics have been found in human thrombi of individuals treated by thrombectomy, and the severity of disease (ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or deep vein thrombosis) was associated with higher MNP concentrations ( 90 ).

Food classification systems would be most productive if aligned with the existing science, including thresholds for use and contaminant levels in foods apart from the location of food production. Without this, categorization is based on a list of predetermined food ingredients that serve as qualitative markers of the Nova Group 4 category.

7 Is the food matrix and nutritional quality impacted by processing?

The metabolic consequences of food intake assume food composition is the sum of its parts, but do not account for underlying differences in food matrix structure and subsequent bioavailability of nutrients for digestion and absorption ( 91 ). The food matrix is the complex micro- and macrostructural environment in which the various components of a food or product interact, and research has shown that the same nutrients behave very differently depending on food matrix structure ( 92 ). In many cases, food components cannot be consumed or digested in the absence of processing and changes in the food matrix structures are necessary to promote consumer appeal, digestibility, and bio-accessibility of a food’s nutrients ( 93 ). For example, milling of cereals, gelatinization of starch during cooking of grains and denaturation, and precipitation of protein in egg whites by heat processing are all required to optimize digestion of these raw materials ( 91 ). Some have speculated that the degree of food processing affects food matrices, which in turn may exhibit a deleterious effect on human health ( 94 ). Processing can change the physicochemical properties of the food matrix, such as polysaccharide gelling, protein denaturation, water and electrolyte loss, increasing/decreasing the content of antinutrients including phytates, and degradation of vitamins and bioactive compounds ( 95 – 97 ). For example, extensively refined grains may have an increased glycemic index due to the removal of the bran layer and an altered food matrix ( 98 ). Two foods with identical composition can differ in functionality and have distinct metabolic and physiological impact on consumption ( 99 ). For example, an early study showed differing glycemic and insulin response after applesauce consumption compared to whole apples ( 100 ). Some modern processed foods contain purified or isolated fractions, such as protein isolates, and enzymatically modified ingredients. This has been suggested to increase the biochemical complexity and diversity of nutritional components in the modern diet ( 101 ).

Processing of plant-based foods can induce some changes in the food matrix, which may improve bio-accessibility and bioavailability of its components (e.g., polyphenols and carotenoids), by mechanical, thermal or by chemical transformation ( 102 , 103 ). Briones-Labarca et al. ( 104 ) subjected apples to a high pressure of 500 megapascal pressure unit for 2, 4, 8, and 10 min and found an increase in antioxidant capacity over the digestion period, demonstrating that high pressure processing favored the release of antioxidants in the small intestine. Lycopene bioavailability has also been routinely shown to be higher from processed tomato products than from raw tomatoes ( 105 ). Within the dairy product range, processing and matrix structure may enhance interactions between nutrients and modify the metabolic effects of dairy consumption ( 106 ). For example, milk is pasteurized to remove pathogenic bacteria, and homogenized to subdivide fat globules and decrease physical separation of fat which, in turn, can alter the temporal rates of flavor, protein, and lipid release during consumption and digestion ( 107 ). Research shows that dairy fat, when consumed in the form of cheese, affected blood lipids differently than when the constituents were eaten in different matrices. Consuming fat within a cheese matrix resulted in significantly lower blood cholesterol levels compared to an equivalent fat intake as butter ( 108 , 109 ). As such, the relationship between types of processing operations of raw materials and subsequent health outcomes is process and context specific. Whereas, some concerns remain regarding neo-formed compounds and potential negative side-effects of processing, there are important food safety, digestibility, palatability, and nutrient bioavailability benefits that also need to be considered ( 6 ).

8 Consumers’ use of highly/ultra-processed foods

Several factors influence consumer purchasing and acceptance of certain foods, including taste/palatability, cost/value, and ease of preparation/convenience ( 110 ). These factors are important to consider when making food-based recommendations to ensure recommendations are achievable. Foods have more meaning to consumers than the sum of their food components ( 110 ). Enjoyment of food needs to be considered if healthier products are to be accepted and to encourage long-term adoption of healthier, more sustainable diets. Cooking at home does not necessarily translate to preparation of healthier foods, and meals cooked from scratch can be more indulgent than pre-prepared dishes ( 30 ).

Taste is an important factor for consumer purchasing and acceptability ( 110 ). Some additives are used to make foods more palatable and appealing (e.g., flavors, flavor enhancers, emulsifiers, colors, texturants and stabilizers). For example, non-nutritive sweeteners are used instead of sugars to add a sweet taste to a food without adding calories. Stabilizers, such as guar gum, gum arabic, and locust bean gum, help to preserve the structure of the food, and are also dietary fibers that provide beneficial physiological effects ( 44 ). Whole wheat breads commonly use processing steps such as enzyme treatments and food additives such as emulsifiers, antimicrobial agents, and sugars to increase palatability and increase consumption rates ( 111 ), while also increasing shelf-life and reducing food waste.

9 Accessibility and affordability of foods classified as highly/ultra-processed

Highly or ultra-processed foods can cost less than minimally processed (more perishable) foods ( 112 ). In one evaluation, foods classified as UPFs were shown to cost approximately $0.55/100 kcal; whereas minimally processed foods cost $1.45/100 Kcal. This is because vegetables, fruits, meat, poultry, and fish products which are available in minimally processed forms had the highest cost per 100 kcal; whereas grains, mostly consumed as more processed, had the lowest cost. Hall and colleagues ( 65 ) reported that the cost of ingredients alone was approximately 50% higher for the minimally processed versus the UPF diet provided in their study.

Foods classified as HPF/UPF can be more affordable, in part, because manufacturers purchase the ingredients in large quantities, maximize yield and efficiencies to decrease waste, utilize food side stream products to offset processing costs, and utilize various processing and packaging technologies, as well as food additives (e.g., antioxidants) to maximize shelf-life ( 6 ). Affordability is an important factor considered by American consumers ( 110 ). The lowest (20%) income households spend approximately 35% of their income on food; whereas the highest (20%) income households only spend 8.2% ( 113 ).

Because of the high demands of daily life on time for activities, such as working, commuting, and/or attending to children and their activities, the use of foods that can be prepared in an easy and convenient manner is important. Preparing all foods from scratch is no longer realistic for many Americans. According to a USDA report, the average American spends only 37 min in food preparation and cleanup ( 114 ). Although specifics vary, the literature consistently indicates that time spent cooking has declined for Americans at least until the 1990s, and some sources indicate a continual decline since the 1920s ( 115 ). In a study of 1,710 young adults, the majority engaged in food preparation less than once weekly. Reasons included lack of time, lower perceived skill level, and other resource limitations ( 116 ).

If there was a shift towards the reduction of the broad category of foods classified as HPF/UPF in the diet, cost, availability and consumer acceptability and willingness to adapt would need to be considered in addition to consumer literacy in identification of foods classified as HPF/UPF. Some foods classified as UPF also provide nutrition at a lower cost (e.g., fortified cereals). Furthermore, it would be essential to understand potential changes in agricultural and productions systems so that that there is sufficient supply and distribution of a less processed food supply to enable equitable access to raw materials and products.

10 Discussion

More research is needed to better understand the potential beneficial and adverse effects of different levels (e.g., minimally versus highly processed/ultra-processed) and types (e.g., extrusion, fermentation) of food processing, and separately, of food formulation (e.g., nutrients, food additives, contaminants, and other food components) on nutrition and health. Processing compared to formulation effects on nutrition and health are distinct but may interact to impact health in ways that are not yet understood ( 117 ). In particular, there is a paucity of information on how specific processing methods affect the concentration, bioavailability, or other aspects of nutrients and their delivery that may be important to health. Processing may also impact the food matrix, for which there is emerging evidence of relevance for nutrient delivery, biological response, and potentially eating behavior. In addition to strong observational studies assessing hard clinical endpoints, this will require data from randomized controlled trials that are designed to evaluate the mechanisms of action (e.g., gut microbiome) and causal relationships between various food forms and components and chronic disease risk factors and toxicity. However, such studies must include a control to make adequate comparisons, such as foods with the same formulations cooked using home preparation techniques.

Additionally, there is little information on the embedded costs—including ingredient, time, equipment, and energy costs—associated with procuring and consuming a largely minimally processed diet compared to a highly processed diet in the US. It will be important to determine the direct and indirect costs of diets at different processing levels for a variety of contexts, including geographic location (e.g., urban versus rural), level of access to food outlets, ingredient availability, and degree of culinary knowledge and access to cooking equipment.

A stronger evidence base, consisting of both observational studies and RCTs, will allow for a more balanced and critical review of how foods subjected to various processes influence human health to inform future evidence-based dietary guidance and impactful policies. Such studies would clarify the nutrition and health impacts of specific processing steps (linked to “highly processed” and “ultra-processed”), differentiating or comparing steps used in home preparation with those used for industrial production. In addition, ingredient (formulation) effects would ideally be considered separately because processing and ingredients confer different food characteristics and would be anticipated to impact health in different ways. A 2022 survey reported that only 46% of respondents could easily explain what processed foods are and identify examples of processed foods ( 118 ). Finally, although in theory, a nutrient-dense and balanced diet could be prepared at home on a daily basis, the realities of time, cost, convenience, consumer education and acceptance, and access as well as factors core to ensuring a global and equitable food supply such as safety, food waste, and sustainability, need to be considered in research and guidance related to foods classified as HPF/UPF and dietary inclusion or exclusion of particular food categories.

Author contributions

PT: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. RB-S: Writing – review & editing. JC: Writing – review & editing. ED: Writing – review & editing. AD: Writing – review & editing. JE: Writing – review & editing. MF: Writing – review & editing. CF: Writing – review & editing. MG: Writing – original draft. JH: Writing – review & editing. DK: Writing – review & editing. ML: Writing – review & editing. LO’C: Writing – review & editing. KR: Writing – review & editing. BR: Writing – review & editing. JS: Writing – review & editing. CW: Writing – review & editing. LY: Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences (IAFNS). IAFNS is a nonprofit science organization that pools funding from industry and advances science through the in-kind and financial contributions from private and public sector members. This article, in part, includes information from a cross-stakeholder meeting and held in May 2023, “Considerations for Formulation and Degree of Processing in Food Classification Systems that Support Research,” and held on 16–17 May 2023 held in Washington, DC (see: https://iafns.org/event/food-classification-workshop/ ). This dialogue included presentations from academia, industry, trade associations, and Federal government employees. PT received travel funding to participate in the May 2023 IAFNS meeting and to prepare the manuscript. RBS, ED, AD, JE, MG, MF, CF, JH, BR, and CW received travel funding to participate in the May 2023 IAFNS meeting. JE, MF, and DK are members of the IAFNS Board of Trustees.

Acknowledgments

Some speakers at the meeting are acknowledged for their contributions to the discussion including Regan Bailey, Institute for Advancing Health Through Agriculture, Texas A&M University; Nadia Flexner, University of Toronto; Kevin Hall, National Institutes for Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases; Kirsten A. Herrick, National Institutes of Health; Filippa Juul, New York University; Anna Rosales, Institute of Food Technologists; and Alison Steiber, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Lindsay Smith Taillie of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill also provided guidance for development of the workshop.

Conflict of interest

RB-S was employed by Mathematica. JS was employed by Griffith Foods, Inc. LY was employed by The Kraft Heinz Company. During the past 5 years, PT has served as a consultant to General Mills, PepsiCo, Johnson & Johnson, Nestle USA, Ocean Spray, GlaxoSmithKline, Tate & Lyle, Ingredion, Bioneutra, Lantmännen, Hayashibara, MycoTechnology, Quebec Maple Syrup Producers, Colgate Palmolive, Constellation Brands, Kappa Biosciences, Kodiak Cakes, Bay State Milling, Intertek, The Protein Brewery, 8Greens, GRAS Associates, ILSI North America, and Institute for the Advancement Food and Nutrition Sciences. JC is employed by General Mills, Inc. and a member of the Board of Trustees for IFIC (unpaid). AD is a scientific advisor to Nestlé, Friesland Campina Institute, and BEL, an invited member of the Carbohydrate Quality Panel supported by Potatoes USA, and is or has been consultant to National Pork Board, Ajinomoto, FoodMinds, Nutrition Institute, Nutrition Impact, Samsung and The Kraft Heinz Company. ED is a member of Sensient and the Cranberry Institute’s Scientific Advisory Boards. He also consults for Ripple Foods, Clif Bar, Ingenuity Foods and is providing expert witness advice for Mayer and Brown. JE is a member of the IAFNS Board of Trustees and on the Scientific Advisory Board for SNI-Global. He is also a member of the Journal of Nutrition Editorial Board. CF has received ongoing research financial support from the TKI Top Sector Agri-Food program (the Netherlands). CF reports both paid and non-paid relationships with Kerry Taste and Nutrition, PepsiCo, United States Department of Agriculture, General Mills, GB Foods, ILSI-SEA, Institute for Food Technologists, British Nutrition Society, World Sugar Research Organisation, and the Northern Irish Dairy Council, that includes consulting/advisory, speaking fees and travel reimbursement. MF is a member of the Board of Directors for Sensient Technologies as well as a member of the Board of Trustees for IAFNS (unpaid) and the International Food Information Council (IFIC-unpaid). MF has also served during the past 5 years as an advisor or on advisory councils for Chick-Fil-a, Clorox Nutranext, Danone, Ekaterra, Florida Department of Citrus (unpaid), Unilever. He has also received speaker fees from the US Tea Association and has provided expert testimony for Kleinfeld Kaplan and Becker. MG is a consultant on research projects funded by both Cereal Partners worldwide and CAOBISCO on aspects of food intake patterns and has also lectured on aspects of ultra-processed foods to Mondelez, Unilever and Nestlé. DK is a consultant to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the Calorie Control Council, Dyets, Inc., USDA Agricultural Research Service, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, General Mills, is a member of the Scientific Advisory Panel for Potatoes USA, is an Associate Editor of The Journal of Nutrition, and a member of the IAFNS Board of Trustees. ML is employed by IAFNS. LO is principal investigator on a grant administered by the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA #2022-07671) to coordinate a workshop to establish a research roadmap for the future of food processing, processed food, and human health research. Collaborators on this grant include scientists from Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) with special input from General Mills and academic scientists. KR is employed by Conagra Brands, Inc. BR serves on the Scientific Advisory Council of the McCormick Science Institute. JS is employed by Griffith Foods, Inc. CW serves on the US Food and Drug Administration Science Board, advises the IAFNS Low- and No-Calorie Sweeteners Committee (unpaid), serves on the ILSI Board of Trustees (unpaid), serves on the California Prune Board and California Walnut Board, serves as a Scientific Advisor for Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center, and has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Dairy Council.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. Code of Federal Regulations. 21 CF 321 (gg). Definitions generally. (2024). Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title21/html/USCODE-2021-title21-chap9-subchapII-sec321.htm (Accessed 1 June 2024).

Google Scholar

2. Institute of Food Technology. Food Processing. (2023). Available at: https://www.ift.org/policy-and-advocacy/advocacy-toolkits/food-processing (Accessed 12 June 2023)

3. Weaver, CM, Dwyer, J, Fulgoni, VL, King, JC, Leville, GA, MacDonald, RS, et al. Processed foods: contributions to nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr . (2014) 99:1525–42. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.114.089284

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Ghasemlou, M, Barrow, CJ, and Adhikari, B. The future of bioplastics in food packaging: An industrial perspective. Food Packag. Shelf . (2024) 43:101279.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

5. Kim, YK, Min, B, and Kim, KY. Innovations in Food Packaging. Chapter 2 General characteristic of packaging material for food system . eds. JH Han (2014) 13–35. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123116321/innovations-in-food-packaging#book-info

6. Forde, GC, and Decker, EA. The importance of food processing and eating behavior in promoting healthy and sustainable diets. Ann Rev Nutr . (2022) 42:377–99. doi: 10.1146/annurev-nutr-062220-030123

7. Government of Canada. (2022) Canada’s Food Guide. Limit highly processed foods, Available at: https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/healthy-eating-recommendations/limit-highly-processed-foods/ (Accessed 24 August 2023)

8. Martinez-Steele, E, Khandpur, N, Batis, C, Bes-Rastrollo, M, Bonaccio, M, Cediel, G, et al. Best practices for applying the Nova food classification system. Nature Food . (2023) 4:445–8. doi: 10.1038/s43016-023-00779-w

9. Poti, JM, Mendez, MA, Ng, SW, and Popkin, BM. Is the degree of food processing and convenience linked with the nutritional quality of foods purchased by US households? Am J Clin Nutr . (2015) 101:1251–62. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.114.100925

10. Slimani, N, Deharveng, G, Southgate, DAT, Biessy, C, Chajes, V, van Bakel, MME, et al. Contribution of highly industrially processed foods to the nutrient intakes and patterns of middle-aged populations in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition study. Eur J Clin Nutr . (2009) 63:S206–25. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2009.82

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Asfaw, A. Does consumption of processed foods explain disparities in the body weight of individuals? The case of Guatemala. Health . (2011) 20:184–95. doi: 10.1002/hec.1579

12. Eicher-Miller, H, Fulgoni, VL, and Keast, DR. Contributions of processed foods to dietary intake in the US from 2003–2008: a report of the food and nutrition science solutions joint task force of the academy of nutrition and dietetics, American Society for Nutrition, Institute of Food Technologists, and international food information council. J Nutr . (2012) 142:2065S–72S. doi: 10.3945/jn.112.164442

13. Davidou, S, Christodoulou, A, Fardet, A, and Frank, K. The holistico-reductionist Siga classification according to the degree of food processing: an evaluation of ultra-processed foods in French supermarkets. Food Funct . (2020) 11:2026–39. doi: 10.1039/C9FO02271F

14. Ministry of Health of Brazil. (2015) Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population. Available at: https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/dietary_guidelines_brazilian_population.pdf (Accessed 12 June 2023)

15. Uruguay Ministry of Public Health. (2016) Food-based Dietary Guidelines-Uruguay. Available at: https://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-based-dietary-guidelines/regions/countries/uruguay/fr/#:~:text=Avoid%20buying%20products%20with%20an,to%20bring%20out%20the%20flavors . (Accessed 15 June 2023)

16. de Salud, Ministerio, and del Ecuador y, Pública, FAO, (2021) Documento Técnico de las Guías Alimentarias Basadas en Alimentos (GABA) del Ecuador. Available at: https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CA9928ES (Accessed 13 June 2023)

17. Peru Ministerio de Salud. (2020) Guías alimentarias para la población peruana. Available at: https://repositorio.ins.gob.pe/handle/20.500.14196/1247 (Accessed 13 June 2023)

18. Israeli Ministry of Health (2019) Nutritional Recommendations. Available at: https://www.health.gov.il/PublicationsFiles/dietary%20guidelines%20EN.pdf (Accessed 13 June 2023)

19. Ministry of Health Malaysia (2020) Malaysian Dietary Guidelines. Available at: https://hq.moh.gov.my/nutrition/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Web%20MDG.pdf (Accessed 13 June 2023)

20. Chile Ministry of Health (2022) Dietary Guidelines for Chile. Available at: https://infoalimentario.com/2022/12/25/chile-ministry-of-health-presents-updated-dietary-guidelines-for-chile/ (Accessed 13 June 2023)

21. Health Canada (2019) Canada’s Dietary Guidelines. Available at: food-guide.canada.ca/en/guidelines (Accessed 13 June 2023)

22. Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (2023) SACN Statement on Processed Foods and Health. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1168948/SACN-position-statement-Processed-Foods-and-Health.pdf (Accessed 16 July 2023)

23. Nordic Council of Ministers (2023) Nordic Nutrition Recommendations. Available at: https://www.norden.org/en/publication/nordic-nutrition-recommendations-2023 (Accessed 13 September 2023)

24. USDA (2023) Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review. Available at: https://nesr.usda.gov/protocols (Accessed 4 August 2023)

25. Dietary Guidelines for Americans (2023) Work Under Way. Dietary Guidelines for Americans Advisory Committee: Meeting 2. Available at: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/get-involved/meeting-2 (Accessed 4 August 2023)

26. De Araujo, TP, de Moraes, MM, Afonso, C, Santos, C, and Rodrigeus, SSP. Food processing: comparison of different food classification systems. Nutrients . (2022) 14:729. doi: 10.3390/nu14040729

27. Monteiro, CA, Cannon, G, Levy, RB, Moubarac, JC, Jaime, P, Martins, AP, et al. Nova system: the star shines bright. World Nutrition . (2016) 7:28–38.

28. Martinez Steel, E, O’Connor, LE, Juul, F, Khanpur, N, Galatri Baraldi, L, Monteiro, CA, et al. Identifying and estimating ultraprocessed food intake in the NHANES according to the Nova classification system of food processing. J Nutr . (2023) 153:225–41. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2022.09.001

29. Scrinis, G, and Monteiro, CA. Ultra-processed foods and the limits of product reformulation. Pub Health Nutr . (2018) 21:247–52. doi: 10.1017/S1368980017001392

30. Lockyer, S, Spiro, A, Berry, S, He, J, Loth, S, Martinez-Inchausti, A, et al. How do we differentiate not demonise- is there a role for healthier processed foods in an age of food insecurity? Proceedings of a roundtable event. Nutr Bull . (2023) 48:278–95. doi: 10.1111/nbu.12617

31. Bleiweiss-Sande, R, Chui, K, Evans, EW, Goldberg, J, Amin, S, and Sacheck, J. Robustness of food processing classification systems. Nutrients . (2019) 11:1344. doi: 10.3390/nu11061344

32. Mozaffarian, D, El-Abbadi, NH, O’Hearn, M, Erndt-Marino, J, Masters, WA, Jacques, P, et al. Food compass is a nutrient profiling system using expanded characteristics for assessing healthfulness of foods. Nature Food . (2021) 2:809–18. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00381-y

33. Ortenzi, F, Kolby, M, Lawrence, M, Phillips, SM, van Vliet, S, and Beal, T. Limitations of the food compass nutrient profiling system. J Nutr . (2023) 153:610–4. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.01.027

34. Juul, F, Parekh, N, Martinez-Steele, E, Monteiro, CA, and Change, VW. Ultra-processed food consumption among US adults from 2001 to 2018. Am J Clin Nutr . (2022) 115:211–21. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqab305

35. Menichetti, G, Ravandi, B, Mozaffarian, D, and Barabasi, AL. Machine learning prediction of the degree of food processing. Nat Commun . (2023) 14:2312. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-37457-1

36. USDA and HHS. (2020) Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 2020–2025. Available at: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans-2020-2025.pdf (Accessed 13 June 2023)

37. Hess, JM, Comeau, ME, Casperson, S, Slavin, JL, Johnson, GH, Messina, M, et al. Dietary guidelines meet NOVA: developing a menu for a healthy dietary pattern using ultra-processed foods. J Nutr . (2023) 153:2472–81. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.06.028

38. Code of Federal Regulations (2024) Food Additives: Definitions. Available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-170/subpart-A/section-170.3 (Accessed 1 June 2024)

39. Code of Federal Regulations (2024) 21 CFR 172.375. Potassium iodine. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title21-vol3/pdf/CFR-2012-title21-vol3-sec172-375.pdf (Accessed 1 June 2024)

40. Code of Federal Regulations (2024) 21 CFR 172.345. Folic Acid (Folacin). 2023. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=172.345 (Accessed 1 June 2024)

41. Code of Federal Regulations (2024) 21 CFR 172.380. Vitamin D3. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=172.380 (Accessed 1 June 2024)

42. Code of Federal Regulations (2024) 21 CFR 172.379. Vitamin D2. 2023. Available from: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-172/subpart-D/section-172.379 (Accessed 1 June 2024)

43. Code of Federal Regulations (2024) 21 CFR 101.9. Nutrition labeling of food. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=101.9 (Accessed 1 June 2024)

44. US Food and Drug Administration (2018) The Declaration of Certain Isolated or Synthetic Non-Digestible Carbohydrates as Dietary Fiber on Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels: Guidance for Industry. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/113663/download (Accessed 15 June 2023)

45. Code of Federal Regulations (2024) 21 CFR. 137.165. Enriched flour. Available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-137/subpart-B/section-137.165 (Accessed 1 June 2024)

46. Zhu, Y, Jain, N, Vanage, V, Holschuh, N, Agler, AH, and Smith, JD. Association between ready-to-eat cereal consumption and nutrient intake, nutritional adequacy, and diet quality in adults in the National Health and nutrition examination survey 2015–2016. Nutrients . (2019) 11:2952. doi: 10.3390/nu11122952

47. Paglai, G, Dinu, M, Madarena, MP, Bonaccio, M, Iacoviello, L, and Sofi, F. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health status: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Nutr . (2021) 125:308–18. doi: 10.1017/S0007114520002688

48. Moradi, S, Kermanu, MAH, Baheri, R, Mohammadi, H, Jayedi, A, Lane, MM, et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and adult diabetes risk: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Nutrients . (2021) 13:4410. doi: 10.3390/nu13124410

49. Delpino, FM, Figueiredo, LM, Bielmann, RM, da Silva, BGC, Dos Santos, FS, Mintem, GC, et al. Ultra-processed food and risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Int J Epidemiol . (2022) 51:1120–41. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyab247

50. Chen, Z, Khandpur, N, Desjardins, C, Wang, L, Monteiro, CA, and Rossato, SL. Ultra-processed food consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: three large prospective U.S. cohort studies. Diabetes Care . (2023) 46:1335–44. doi: 10.2337/dc22-1993

51. Wang, M, Du, X, Huang, W, and Xu, Y. Ultra-processed foods consumption increases the risk of hypertension in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Hypertens . (2022) 35:892–901. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpac069

52. Yuan, L, Hu, H, Li, T, Zhang, J, Feng, Y, Yang, X, et al. Dose-response meta-analysis of ultra-processed food with the risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality: evidence from prospective cohort studies. Food Funct . (2023) 14:2586–96. doi: 10.1039/D2FO02628G

53. Suksatan, W, Moradi, S, Naeini, F, Bagheri, R, Mohammadi, H, Talebi, S, et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and adult mortality risk: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of 207,291 participants. Nutrients . (2022) 14:174. doi: 10.3390/nu14010174

54. Scrinis, G, and Monteiro, C. From ultra-processed foods to ultra-processed dietary patterns. Nat Food . (2022) 3:671–3. doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00599-4

55. Dicken, SJ, and Batterham, RL. The role of diet quality in mediating the association between ultra-processed food intake, obesity and health-related outcomes: a review of prospective cohort studies. Nutrients . (2022) 14:23. doi: 10.3390/nu14010023

56. Griffin, J, Albaloul, A, Kopytek, A, Elliott, P, and Frost, G. Effect of ultra processed food intake on cardiometabolic risk is mediated by diet quality: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Nutr Prev Health . (2021) 4:174–80. doi: 10.1136/bmjnph-2020-000225

57. Leung, CW, Fulay, AP, Parnarouskis, L, Martinez-Steele, E, Gearhardt, AN, and Wolfson, JA. Food insecurity and ultra-processed food consumption: the modifying role of participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP). Am J Clin Nutr . (2022) 116:197–205. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqac049

58. Gupta, S, Rose, CM, Buszkiewicz, J, Ko, LK, Mou, J, Cook, A, et al. Characterising percentage energy from ultra-processed foods by participant demographics, diet quality and diet cost: findings from the Seattle obesity study (SOS) III. Br J Nutr . (2021) 126:773–81. doi: 10.1017/S0007114520004705

59. Aggarwal, A, Monsivai, AP, and Drewnowski, A. Nutrient intakes linked to better health outcomes are associated with higher diet costs in the US. PLoS One . (2012) 7:e37533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037533

60. Mendoza-Velazquez, A, Lara-Arevalo, J, Siqueira, KB, Guzman-Rodriguez, M, and Drewnowski, A. Affordable nutrient density in Brazil: nutrient profiling in relation to food cost and NOVA category assignments. Nutrients . (2022) 14:4256. doi: 10.3390/nu14204256

61. Canhada, SL, Vigo, A, Luft, VC, Levy, RB, Matos, SMA, Molina, MDC, et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and increased risk of metabolic syndrome in adults: the ELSA-Brasil. Diabetes Care . (2023) 46:369–76. doi: 10.2337/dc22-1505

62. Gu, Y, Li, H, Ma, H, Zhang, S, Meng, J, Zhang, Q, et al. Consumption of ultraprocessed food and development of chronic kidney disease: the Tianjin chronic low-grade systemic inflammation and health and UK BioBank cohort studies. Am J Clin Nutr . (2023) 117:373–82. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2022.11.005

63. Liu, J, Martinez Steele, E, Li, Y, Yi, SS, Monteiro, CA, and Mozaffarian, D. Consumption of ultraprocessed foods and body fat distribution among U.S. adults. Am J Prev Med . (2023) 65:P427–38. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2023.03.012

64. Department of Health and Human Services. (2030) Healthy People 2030. Poverty. Available at: https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health/literature-summaries/poverty#:~:text=Across%20the%20lifespan%2C%20residents%20of,mortality%2C%20and%20lower%20life%20expectancy.&text=Children%20make%20up%20the%20largest%20age%20group%20of%20those%20experiencing%20poverty (Accessed 30 August 2023)

65. Hall, KD, Ayuketah, A, Brychta, R, Cai, H, Cassimatis, T, Chen, KY, et al. Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake. Cell Metab . (2019) 30:67–77.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008

66. Srour, B, Kordahl, MC, Bonazze, E, Deschasaux-Tanguy, M, Touvier, M, and Chassaing, B. Ultra-processed foods and human health: from epidemiological evidence to mechanistic insights. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol . (2022) 7:1128–40. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00169-8

67. Juul, F, Vaidean, G, and Parekh, N. Ultra-processed foods and cardiovascular diseases: potential mechanisms of action. Adv Nutr . (2021) 12:1673–80. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmab049

68. Gibney, MJ, and Forde, CG. Nutrition research challenges for processed food and health. Nature Food . (2022) 3:104–9. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00457-9

69. Forde, CG, and de Graaf, K. Influence of sensory properties in moderating eating behaviors and food intake. Front Nutr . (2022) 9:841444. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.841444

70. Rolls, BJ, Cunningham, PM, and Ditkas, HE. Properties of ultraprocessed foods that can drive excess intake. Nutr Today . (2020) 55:109–15. doi: 10.1097/NT.0000000000000410

71. Rolls, BJ. The relationship between dietary energy density and energy intake. Physiol Behav . (2009) 97:609–15. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.03.011

72. Fazzino, TL, Rohde, K, and Sullivan, DK. Hyper-palatable foods: development of a quantitative definition and application to the US food system database. Obesity . (2019) 27:1761–8. doi: 10.1002/oby.22639

73. Robinson, E, Almiron-Roig, E, Rutters, F, de Graaf, C, Forde, CG, Tudur, SC, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effect of eating rate on energy intake and hunger. Am J Clin Nutr . (2014) 100:123–51. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.081745

74. Hollis, JH. The effect of mastication on food intake, satiety, and body weight. Physiol Behav . (2018) 193:242–5. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.04.027

75. Teo, PS, van Dam, RM, Whitton, C, Tan, LWL, and Forde, CG. Consumption of foods with higher energy intake rates is associated with greater energy intake, adiposity, and cardiovascular risk factors in adults. J Nutr . (2021) 151:370–8. doi: 10.1093/jn/nxaa344

76. Teo, PS, van Dam, RM, and Forde, GG. Combined impact of a faster self-reported eating rate and higher dietary energy intake rate on energy intake and adiposity. Nutrients . (2020) 12:3264. doi: 10.3390/nu12113264

77. Forde, CG, Mars, M, and De Graaf, K. Ultra-processing or oral processing? A role for energy density and eating rate in moderating energy intake from processed foods. Curr Dev Nutr . (2020) 4:nzaa019. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzaa019

78. Teo, PS, Lim, AJ, Goh, AT, Choy, JY, McCrickerd, K, and Forde, CG. Texture-based differences in eating rate influence energy intake for minimally processed and ultra-processed meals. Am J Clin Nutr . (2022) 116:244–54. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqac068

79. Forde, CG. Beyond ultra-processed; considering the future role and food processing in human health. Proc Nutr Soc . (2023) 82:406–18. doi: 10.1017/S0029665123003014

80. Monteiro, C.A., Cannon, G., Lawrence, M., da Costa Luzada, M.L., and Machado, P.P. (2019) Ultra-processed foods, diet quality, and health using the NOVA classification system. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome: FAO

81. US Food and Drug Administration. (2018) FDA Removes 7 Synthetic Flavoring Substances from Food Additives List. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan-constituent-updates/fda-removes-7-synthetic-flavoring-substances-food-additives-list (Accessed 15 June 2023)

82. US Food and Drug Administration. (2023) Aspartame and Other Sweeteners in Food. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/aspartame-and-other-sweeteners-food (Accessed 2 January 2024)

83. Martínez-Steel, E, Buckley, JP, and Monteiro, CA. Ultra-processed food consumption and exposure to acrylamide in a nationally representative sample of the US population aged 6 years and older. Prev Med . (2023) 174:107598. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2023.107598

84. Matos, RA, Adams, M, and Sabate, J. Review: the consumption of ultra-processed foods and non-communicable diseases in Latin America. Front Nutr . (2021) 8:622714. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2021.622714

85. González-Mulero, L, Mesías, M, Morales, FJ, and Delgado-Andrade, C. Acrylamide exposure from common culinary preparations in Spain, in household, catering and industrial settings. Food Secur . (2021) 10:92008. doi: 10.3390/foods10092008

86. Kumari, A, Bhattacharya, B, Agarwal, T, and Paul, PS. Integrated approach towards acrylamide reduction in potato-based snacks: a critical review. Food Res Int . (2022) 156:111172. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111172

87. Bancil, AS, Sandall, AM, Rossi, M, Chassaing, B, Lindsay, JO, and Whelan, K. Food additive emulsifiers and their impact on gut microbiome, permeability, and inflammation: mechanistic insights in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohn's Colitis . (2021) 15:1068–79. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjaa254

88. Sellem, L, Srour, B, Javaux, G, Chazelas, E, Chassaing, B, and Viennois, E. Food additive emulsifiers and cancer risk: results from the French prospective NutriNet-Santé cohort. PLoS Med . (2024) 21:1–22. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004338

89. Hussain, KA, Romanova, S, Okur, I, Zand, D, Kuebler, J, and Huang, X. Assessing the release of microplastics and nanoplastics from plastic containers and reusable food pouches: implications for human health. Environ Sci Technol . (2023) 57:9782–92. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.3c01942

90. Wang, T, Yi, Z, Liu, X, Cai, Y, Huang, X, Fang, J, et al. Multimodal detection and analysis of microplastics in human thrombi from multiple anatomically distinct sites. EBIOM . (2024) 103:105118. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105118

91. Forde, CG, and Bolhuis, D. Interrelations between food form, texture, and matrix influence energy intake and metabolic responses. Curr Nutr Rep . (2022) 11:124–32. doi: 10.1007/s13668-022-00413-4

92. Aguilera, JM. The food matrix: implications in processing, nutrition and health. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr . (2019) 59:3612–29. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2018.1502743

93. Dima, C, Assadpour, E, Dima, S, and Jafari, SM. Bioavailablity of neutraceuticals: role of the food matrix, processing conditions, the gastrointestinal tract, and non-delivery systems. Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safety . (2020) 19:954–94. doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12547

94. Fardet, A, and Rock, C. Chronic diseases are first associated with the degradation and artificialization of food matrices rather than with food composition: calorie quality matters more than calorie quantity. Eur J Nutr . (2022) 61:2239–53. doi: 10.1007/s00394-021-02786-8

95. Jafari, SM, and McClements, DJ. Nanotechnology approaches for increasing nutrient bioavailability. Adv in Food Res . (2017) 81:1–30. doi: 10.1016/bs.afnr.2016.12.008

96. Tavakoli, HR, Naderi, M, Jafar, SM, and Naeli, MH. Post-marketing surveillance of the oxidative stability for cooking oils, frying oils, and vanaspati supplied in the retail market. Food Sci Nutr . (2019) 7:1455–65. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.982

97. Tomas, M., and Jafar, S.M. (2019) Influence of food processing operations on vitamins. Reference module in food science, encyclopedia of food chemistry . Amsterdam Elsevier

98. Capuano, E, Oliviero, T, Fogliana, V, and Pelligrini, N. Role of the food matrix and digestion on calculation of the actual energy content of food. Nutr Rev . (2018) 76:274–89. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nux072

99. Capuano, E, Olivero, T, and van Boekel, MA. Modeling food matrix effects on chemical reactivity: challenges and perspectives. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr . (2018) 58:2814–28. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2017.1342595

100. Haber, GB, Heaton, KW, Murphy, D, and Burroughs, LF. Depletion and disruption of dietary fibre. Effects on satiety, plasma-glucose, and serum-insulin. Lancet . (1977) 2:679–82. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(77)90494-9

101. Barabasi, AL, Menichetti, G, and Loscalzo, J. The unmapped chemical complexity of our diet. Nat Food . (2020) 1:33–7. doi: 10.1038/s43016-019-0005-1

102. Hotz, C, and Gibson, SR. Traditional food processing and preparation practices to enhance the bioavailability of micronutrients in plant-based diets. J Nutr . (2007) 137:1097–100. doi: 10.1093/jn/137.4.1097

103. Ribas-Augusti, A, Martin-Belloso, O, Soliva-Fortuny, R, and Elez-Martinez, P. Food processing strategies to enhance phenolic compounds bioaccessibility and bioavailability in plant-based foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr . (2017) 58:2531–48. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2017.1331200

104. Briones-Labarca, V, Venegas-Cubillos, G, Ortiz-Portilla, S, Chacana-Ojeda, M, and Maureira, H. Effects of high hydrostatic pressure (HHP) on bioaccessibility, as well as antioxidant activity, mineral and starch contents, in granny Smith apple. Food Chem . (2011) 128:520–9. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.03.074

105. Allen, CM, Schwartz, SJ, Craft, NE, Giovannucci, EL, De Groff, VL, and Clinton, SK. Changes in plasma and oral mucosal lycopene isomer concentrations in healthy adults consuming standard servings of processed tomato products. Nutr Cancer . (2003) 47:48–56. doi: 10.1207/s15327914nc4701_6

106. Thorning, TK, Bertram, HC, Bonjour, JP, De Groot, L, Dupont, D, Feeney, E, et al. Whole dairy matrix or single nutrients in assessment of health effects: current evidence and knowledge gap. Am J Clin Nutr . (2017) 105:1033–45. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.116.151548

107. Huppertz, T, and Lambers, TT. Influence of micellar calcium phosphate on in vitro gastric coagulation and digestion of milk proteins in infant formula model systems. Int Dairy J . (2020) 107:104717. doi: 10.1016/j.idairyj.2020.104717

108. Feeney, EL, Barron, R, Dible, V, Hamilton, Z, Power, Y, Tanner, L, et al. Dairy matrix effects: response to consumption of dairy fat differs when eaten within the cheese matrix- a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr . (2018) 108:667–74. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy146

109. Feeney, EL, Lamichhane, P, and Sheehan, JJ. The cheese matrix: understanding the impact of cheese structure on aspects of cardiovascular health-a food science and a human nutrition perspective. Int J Dairy Technol . (2021) 74:656–70. doi: 10.1111/1471-0307.12755

110. International Food Information Council. (2023) 2023 Food and Healthy Survey. Available at: https://foodinsight.org/2023-food-and-health-survey/ (Accessed 13 July 2023)

111. Lourenco, S, Hansen, GL, Staerk, B, Frank, P, and Petersen, CT. The whole grain partnership-how a public-private partnership helped increase whole grain intake in Denmark. Cereal Foods World . (2019) 64:3. doi: 10.1094/CFW-64-3-0027

112. Gupta, S, Hawk, T, Aggarwal, A, and Drewnowski, A. Characterizing ultra-processed foods by energy density, nutrient density, and cost. Frontiers Nutr . (2019) 6:1–9. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2019.00070

113. USDA, ERS (2018) Food spending as a share of income declines as income rises. Available at: USDA ERS—Chart Detail (Accessed 25 August 2023)

114. Hamrick, KS, and McClelland, K. (2016) Americans’ Eating Patterns and Time Spent on Food: The 2014 Eating & Health Module Data. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/80500/60064_eib158.pdf?v=2926.1 (Accessed 25 August 2023)

115. Plessz, M, and Etile, F. Is cooking still part of our eating practices? Analyzing the decline of a practice with time-use surveys. Cult Sociol . (2018) 13:93–118. doi: 10.1177/1749975518791431

116. Larson, NI, Perry, CL, Story, M, and Neumark-Sztainer, D. Food preparation by young adults is associated with better diet quality. J Am Dietetic Assoc . (2006) 106:2001–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2006.09.008

117. Levine, AS, and Ubbink, J. Ultra-processed foods: processing versus formulation. Obes Sci Pract . (2023) 9:435–9. doi: 10.1002/osp4.657

118. Food Insight. (2022) Perceptions on Processed: Consumer Sentiment and Purchasing Habits. Available at: Americans’ Perceptions and Purchasing Habits of Processed Foods ( foodinsight.org ) (Accessed 21 December 2023)

Keywords: formulation, nutrient adequacy, safety, ultraprocessed foods, consumer acceptability

Citation: Trumbo PR, Bleiweiss-Sande R, Campbell JK, Decker E, Drewnowski A, Erdman JW, Ferruzzi MG, Forde CG, Gibney MJ, Hess JM, Klurfeld DM, Latulippe ME, O’Connor LE, Reimers KJ, Rolls BJ, Schulz J, Weaver C and Yu L (2024) Toward a science-based classification of processed foods to support meaningful research and effective health policies. Front. Nutr . 11:1389601. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1389601

Received: 22 February 2024; Accepted: 12 June 2024; Published: 03 July 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Trumbo, Bleiweiss-Sande, Campbell, Decker, Drewnowski, Erdman, Ferruzzi, Forde, Gibney, Hess, Klurfeld, Latulippe, O’Connor, Reimers, Rolls, Schulz, Weaver and Yu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Paula R. Trumbo, [email protected]

† Deceased

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Processed Food Industry Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The Impact of Processed Foods on Human Health

The impact of processed foods on the environment, the impact of processed foods on the economy.

The current paper dwells on a number of issues connected to the processed food industry. A variety of influences are reviewed and critically appraised within the framework of this in-depth discussion. The implications of processed food on human health, the environment, and the economy are deliberated. The key concepts regarding the harmful nature of processed foods and the major reasons for UAE residents to consume fewer processed foods are covered in the last section of the paper.

The problem with processed food consists in the fact that it lacks numerous essential nutrients that are required for proper digestion. For instance, grain cannot be properly digested in the form of refined white rice as it lacks the fiber that can be found in its original form, brown rice. Another issue that may arise due to processed foods is a faster release of sugar into the bloodstream (Moubarac et al., 2012). This increased sugar significantly limits the number of minerals and vitamins that can be transferred to the vital organs of the human body. It is a well-known fact that blood sugar can be regulated by biotin and thiamine; the core mission of these two active factors is to transfer glucose to the mitochondria, which is the energy center of a human body cell.

However, these active factors are unable to accomplish their mission successfully if a person eats too many processed foods. In perspective, by eating overly refined foods, an individual is depriving him or herself of the elements that help the human body function properly and provide its organs with indispensable nutrients (Monteiro, Moubarac, Cannon, & Popkin, 2013). Regardless of the documented adverse impact of processed foods, one should be aware of the fact that rare or infrequent consumption of processed foods does not significantly affect the human body. The problems mostly arise when processed foods are incorporated as a major regular presence of the diet. Another point to consider is that a gluten-free diet does not harm the human body. This positive outlook should be perceived as a warning because obesity is often caused by processed foods that elicit a strong desire to overeat (Baker & Friel, 2014). Indeed, a sensory-oriented strategy is one of the core principles of the food industry.

Another major problem with processed foods is the fact that every stage of processed food manufacturing has a significant impact on the environment. These stages typically include food processing, packing, transportation, supply, and marketing. The biggest concern regarding processed foods is their high potential for environmental pollution. On a bigger scale, the diversity of the food industry imposes a number of complications on its manufacturers (Krimsky, Gruber, & Nader, 2016). One of these complications is an uncontrollable amount of various types of waste, which can, in turn, become the source of serious ecological problems linked to waste disposal and consequent environmental pollution.

Moreover, because processed food manufacturers tend to ignore the essential recovery methods, such waste leads to a situation in which valuable biomasses are critically damaged, and vital nutrients are lost. Indeed, the problem with processed foods consists of the fact that waste treatment procedures are insignificant, and almost nothing has been done to minimize the amount of hazardous waste or modernize the processes of bioconversion and reutilization (Heldman & Hartel, 2012). Such processes as bioconversion are designed to reduce the impact of processed foods on the environment, but currently, such reduction cannot be accomplished due to poor waste management practices. The companies that operate in the food sector should carefully review their policies and recognize the global impact that processed foods have on the environment.

Growth in the economic sectors of a number of countries all over the world has been supported by the development of the processed foods industry. Currently, processed foods majorly contribute to worldwide GDP and international financial development. Despite its positive connotation for the economy, numerous complications have transpired due to weak policies and regulation of the processed foods industry, as well as increased costs of agriculture (Friel et al., 2013). The economic benefit of the processed foods industry consists in its investment opportunity and income growth. The public demand for processed foods has grown unconditionally, and so has the economic stability of the processed foods industry. This supposition is supported by the fact that this business sector attracts foreign investors and boosts local economies to previously unthinkable dimensions.

It is also important to mention that the processed foods industry has not reached its full potential due to numerous failed investment projects and the subsequent negative effects on the supply chain (Brennan & Grandison, 2012). This aspect of the industry is inextricably linked to complex organizational protocols and actions that should be taken in order to accomplish the corporate goals. The diversity of economic complications created by the processed foods sector has to be addressed by means of a multi-layered approach that takes into account the demands of various stakeholders (Frantzen, 2012). Regardless, following the economic needs of the processed foods industry is questionable, and they’re still exist certain constraints that prevent the manufacturers from revealing the potential of this industry. Considering the growing global demand for processed foods, these companies have to improve their pricing strategies, invest in supply chains, and develop new waste management strategies. Because the food industry is quite competitive, its economic implications have to be taken seriously within the context of the existing complexities inherent in the industry-consumer relationship (Dorfman, 2014).

All UAE residents should realize that processed foods are damaging to the body and the environment, and they should try to eliminate them as soon as possible because these products make them overweight and unhealthy. It is no secret that heart disease and even different types of cancer may be caused by the industrialization of the food business. By reducing the consumption of processed foods, the Emirati people will cut healthcare costs and learn to make smarter choices when it comes to their daily nutritional patterns. There is no critical reason to continue consuming processed foods; these products are simply designed in such a way that they decompose slowly over time. Moreover, by consuming fewer processed food products, the Emirati people will normalize their intake of sugar, oil, and salt.

To this end, it is essential to revert to whole grain products because white flour is associated with the consumption of empty calories. The Emirati should also take into consideration the fact that soy and corn ingredients, which are common to processed foods, do not contribute to a healthy and varied diet. Reducing the consumption of processed foods will lead to a healthier lifestyle, weight loss, and improvements in nutritional intake. One does not have to completely refuse to consume processed foods, but instead, one should carefully compose a custom diet that includes both whole foods and their processed counterparts.

Baker, P., & Friel, S. (2014). Processed foods and the nutrition transition: Evidence from Asia. Obesity Reviews, 15 (7), 564-577. Web.

Brennan, J. G., & Grandison, A. S. (2012). Food processing handbook . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Dorfman, J. H. (2014). Economics and management of the food industry . New York, NY: Routledge.

Frantzen, K. A. (2012). Risk-based analysis for environmental managers . Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.

Friel, S., Hattersley, L., Snowdon, W., Thow, A., Lobstein, T., Sanders, D.,… Walker, C. (2013). Monitoring the impacts of trade agreements on food environments. Obesity Reviews, 14 (4), 120-134. Web.

Heldman, D. R., & Hartel, R. (2012). Principles of food processing . New York, NY: Chapman and Hall.

Krimsky, S., Gruber, J., & Nader, R. (2016). The GMO deception: What you need to know about the food, corporations, and government agencies putting our families and our environment at risk . New York, NY: Skyhorse Publishing.

Monteiro, C. A., Moubarac, J., Cannon, G., & Popkin, B. (2013). Ultra-processed products are becoming dominant in the global food system. Obesity Reviews, 14 (2), 21-28. Web.

Moubarac, J., Martins, A. P., Claro, R. M., Levy, R. B., Cannon, G., & Monteiro, C. A. (2012). Consumption of ultra-processed foods and likely impact on human health: Evidence from Canada. Public Health Nutrition, 16 (12), 2240-2248. Web.

• Casa Vasca Restaurant's Food Safety and Sanitation
• Food Products: Tomatoes and Juice Preservation
• The Effects of Capitalism on People’s Diet
• Healthier School Lunches Without Processed Foods
• General Mill Company's Strengths and Weaknesses
• Sugar Production Stages and Quality
• Current Business Trends and Product Life Cycles
• Food Inspection Procedures in Saudi Arabia
• Food Poisoning and Hygiene Awareness in Saudi Arabia
• Food Safety and Health Violation at Workplace
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, May 20). Processed Food Industry. https://ivypanda.com/essays/processed-food-industry/

"Processed Food Industry." IvyPanda , 20 May 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/processed-food-industry/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Processed Food Industry'. 20 May.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Processed Food Industry." May 20, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/processed-food-industry/.

1. IvyPanda . "Processed Food Industry." May 20, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/processed-food-industry/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Processed Food Industry." May 20, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/processed-food-industry/.

Why Should We Avoid Processed Food?

• Download PDF Copy

Poor nutrition is one of the leading causes of health- and economy-related burdens worldwide. Processed foods that contain high amounts of poor-quality fat, added sugar and salt, low amount of dietary fibers, and a negligible amount of beneficial nutrients are particularly bad for health, as higher consumption of such foods increases the risk of many diseases, as well as elevates the rate of all-cause mortality.

Image Credit: Joe Gough/Shutterstock.com

What are processed foods?

To make a food product convenient-to-use, stable/durable, tasty, and attractive-looking, raw agricultural items are often subjected to various types of modifications, such as washing, cutting, cooking, canning, freezing, dehydrating, packaging, etc. Sometimes, different ingredients are added to increase the flavor and texture of food products (chemically processed).

To maintain a standard quality-control protocol, almost all the food products undergo some degree of processing before coming to the supermarket. Thus, it is important to know the difference between various types of processed foods before evaluating their effects on general health.

Types of processed foods

According to the NOVA food classification, there are four categories of processed food: unprocessed or minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods, and ultra-processed foods, and drink products.

Unprocessed foods include edible portions of plants and animals that are naturally available. For example, plant seeds, fruits, stems, roots, animal milk, eggs, etc.

Minimally processed foods undergo mild processing steps mainly for preservation purposes. The nutritional content of the food remains mostly unaltered.

Processed culinary ingredients are derived from both unprocessed and minimally processed foods that undergo various processing steps, such as pressing, grinding, refining, drying, milling, etc. The items include butter, oil, sugar, salt, whole grain flour, etc.

Processed foods are prepared from category 1 or 2 food products by adding extra ingredients, including salt, sugar, and fats. Some examples of processed foods include canned vegetables, canned meat, cheese, bread, etc. These are generally ready-to-eat food products.

Ultra-processed or highly-processed foods (soft drinks, chips, cookies, ready-to-use meals, and reconstituted meat items) are mostly formulated industrially from ingredients obtained from foods and additives.

In addition to sugar, salt, and fats, ultra-processed foods contain artificial color and flavor, preservatives, and alternative energy sources and undergo many processing steps. The final product lacks almost all the nutritional benefits of category 1 foods.

The main purpose of ultra-processing is to make branded, highly profitable, convenient, and attractive food items that can replace nearly all unprocessed or minimally processed food from everyday diet.

Is it unhealthy to consume processed foods?

In the present busy world where everyone is running out of time, some processed foods are the saviors. Processed foods that are fortified with vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants can be beneficial in terms of providing essential nutrients in a person’s daily diet.

There are many instances of beneficial effects of processed or fortified foods. For example, baby foods fortified with iron and vitamin B12 can prevent anemia; milk containing vitamin D can prevent rickets; salt containing iodine can prevent goiter, and so no.

Despite having some beneficial ones, the majority of processed foods are detrimental for health as they contain a high amount of saturated fats, sugar, salt, and an unmatched amount of calories.

Several scientific studies have claimed that consumption of a high amount of processed food can increase the risk of cardiovascular disorder, metabolic disorders (obesity and diabetes), coronary heart disease, and cerebrovascular diseases.

It has been found that ultra-processed foods affect metabolism and cardiovascular functioning by altering the satiety process and glycemic response of the body. Moreover, several substances that are formed during the ultra-processing of foods play vital roles in triggering the onset and progression of cardiometabolic disorders.

For example, acrylamide (a contaminant formed during the heat treatment of food) and acrolein (a compound formed during heating of fat products) can significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular disorders.

Some packaging materials (bisphenol A), as well as additives (glutamate, sulfite, and carrageenan), can also have adverse effects on cardiovascular health.  

Another drawback of ultra-processed food is that it can indirectly affect cardiovascular system by reducing, if not completely replacing, the consumption of unprocessed or minimally processed foods, which are highly nutritious due to higher content of vitamins, minerals, dietary fibers, and other beneficial nutrients.  

The list compiling detrimental side-effects of ultra-processed foods is ever-growing. A statistically significant correlation has been found between high intake of processed food and increased risk of cancer and irritable bowel syndrome.

Moreover, the consumption of specific ultra-processed foods such as sweetened beverages, processed meat, and red meat is found to be associated with a higher rate of mortality.

Image Credit: Suriya Photo/Shutterstock.com

According to the SUN prospective cohort study that includes 19,899 participants aged 20 – 91 years, a higher intake of ultra-processed food, which equivalents to more than 4 servings per day, is independently associated with 62% higher risk of all-cause mortality. Moreover, each additional serving of ultra-processed food has been found to increase the all-cause mortality risk by 18%.      

Most importantly, children who consume a high amount of ultra-processed foods are more likely to develop dyslipidemia, obesity, and hypertension later in life. Similarly, studies have shown that the percentage of calories consumed by a pregnant woman from ultra-processed food can be used to predict gestational weight gain and infant body fat.      

• Harvard T.H. CHAN. Processed foods and health. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/processed-foods/
• University Health News. 2019. Processed foods: 5 reasons to avoid them. universityhealthnews.com/.../
• Anaïs Rico-Campà. 2019. Association between consumption of ultra-processed foods and all-cause mortality: SUN prospective cohort study. BMJ. https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1949
• Srour B. 2019. Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: a prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé). BMJ. https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1451

Further Reading

• All Food Content
• Health Benefits of Chia Seeds
• What are Functional Foods?

Last Updated: Apr 28, 2020

Dr. Sanchari Sinha Dutta

Dr. Sanchari Sinha Dutta is a science communicator who believes in spreading the power of science in every corner of the world. She has a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) degree and a Master's of Science (M.Sc.) in biology and human physiology. Following her Master's degree, Sanchari went on to study a Ph.D. in human physiology. She has authored more than 10 original research articles, all of which have been published in world renowned international journals.

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

Dutta, Sanchari Sinha Dutta. (2020, April 28). Why Should We Avoid Processed Food?. News-Medical. Retrieved on July 12, 2024 from https://www.news-medical.net/health/Why-Should-We-Avoid-Processed-Food.aspx.

Dutta, Sanchari Sinha Dutta. "Why Should We Avoid Processed Food?". News-Medical . 12 July 2024. <https://www.news-medical.net/health/Why-Should-We-Avoid-Processed-Food.aspx>.

Dutta, Sanchari Sinha Dutta. "Why Should We Avoid Processed Food?". News-Medical. https://www.news-medical.net/health/Why-Should-We-Avoid-Processed-Food.aspx. (accessed July 12, 2024).

Dutta, Sanchari Sinha Dutta. 2020. Why Should We Avoid Processed Food? . News-Medical, viewed 12 July 2024, https://www.news-medical.net/health/Why-Should-We-Avoid-Processed-Food.aspx.

Cancel reply to comment

• Trending Stories
• Latest Interviews
• Top Health Articles

Accelerate Your Research: Harness the Power of 3D Models with Dispen3D

Charlotte Broennimann

Dispen3D is setting new standards in single-cell biology, enabling researchers to conduct high-precision experiments that drive advancements in drug discovery, personalized medicine, and regenerative therapies.

Exploring the benefits of miniaturizing NGS library preparation

In this interview, Huw Rees, a field application scientist at SPT Labtech, discusses the benefits of miniaturization in NGS library preparation and how using mosquito® can give you more value for your money.

Pioneering Live Cell Imaging - Yokogawa's Impact and Innovations

In this interview, NewsMedical speaks with Kevin Jan from Yokogawa about the future of live cell imaging technologies.

Latest News

Newsletters you may be interested in

Your AI Powered Scientific Assistant

Hi, I'm Azthena, you can trust me to find commercial scientific answers from News-Medical.net.

A few things you need to know before we start. Please read and accept to continue.

• Use of “Azthena” is subject to the terms and conditions of use as set out by OpenAI .
• Content provided on any AZoNetwork sites are subject to the site Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .
• Large Language Models can make mistakes. Consider checking important information.

Great. Ask your question.

Azthena may occasionally provide inaccurate responses. Read the full terms .

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions .

Provide Feedback

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Organic Food — Pros And Cons Of Processed Foods For You

Pros and Cons of Processed Foods for You

• Categories: Cooking Organic Food

About this sample

Words: 2435 |

13 min read

Published: Mar 28, 2019

Words: 2435 | Pages: 5 | 13 min read

• high blood pressure (4, 5),
• heart disease (6, 7),
• colorectal cancer (8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
• Gastric oesophageal cancer (13)
• o hydrolyzed vegetable protein
• dextrose corn syrup
• hydrolyzed milk protein
• modified starch
• sodium nitrite
• ascorbic acid
• They have been Bleached
• Benzoyl peroxide
• Calcium peroxide
• Nitrogen dioxide
• Chlorine dioxide
• Azodicarbomide
• Use of chemical Additives
• Emulsifiers: Needed to strengthen dough and make texture consistent. Such as lecithin,s odium stearoyl lactylase (SSL), diglycerides, sucrose ester of fatty acids, polysorbate, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), sodium alginate, to mention a few.
• Dough conditioner like diacetyl tartaric acid, calcium stearoyl-2-lactylate, calcium carbonate and mono calcium phosphate
• Oxidizing agents: helps in gluten development and ultimately makes for a better dough ascorbic acid (during mixing, ascorbic acid converts into its oxidizing form, dehydroascorbic acid (DHAA).), azodicarbinamide(E927), potassium iodate.
• Pesticide Residue
• Gluten Intolerance
• Glutenin and gliadin found in wheat
• Secalin found in rye
• Horden found in barley
• Celiac disease (the most severe)
• Non celiac gluten sensitivity
• Wheat allergy
• Abdominal pain and cramp
• Diarrhoea and constipation
• Iron deficiency (Anaemia)
• Joint and muscle pain
• Brittle nail
• Unexplained weight loss
• Canker sore or mouth ulcers
• Hair loss(alopecia)
• Headache and migraine
• Vitamin and mineral deficiency
• Thiamine (B1) 77%
• Riboflavin (B2) 80%
• Pyridoxine (B6) 72%
• Pantothenic acid 50%
• Vitamin E 86%
• Calcium 60%
• Phosphorus 71%
• Magnesium 84%
• Potassium 77%
• Chromium 40%
• Manganese 86%
• Selenium 16%
• Molybdenum 48%

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 461 words

1 pages / 592 words

3 pages / 1399 words

2 pages / 780 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Organic Food

Carcinogens have plagued our society for many years. For example, radon and arsenic have been around since the Paleolithic era. According to the American Cancer Society: Long-term exposure to radon can lead to lung cancer. [...]

Values Ethical Business Practices Maintain the highest standards in our dealings with employees, customers and suppliers. Corporate Values Self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, solidarity, [...]

Definition and characteristics of meat Overview of the essay's focus on the disadvantages of eating meat Cruelty to animals caused by meat consumption Harm to the environment due to meat production [...]

I chose to focus on the consumption of sugar across different countries and examine which countries citizens have the highest intake of added sugars, because I think added sugars and processed food has a huge influence in our [...]

We all love to drink coffee, we used to drink coffee when we wake up in the everyday to kick-start our morning. But you will absolutely not love the bad effects that coffee can bring to you. Caffeine goes about as a stimulant by [...]

Tuscany wields a heavy, dense history and cultural identity; such to the extent that it is fiercely independent, and often considered to be a ‘nation within a nation’. As such, Tuscany’s viticultural practices have their own [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.371; 2020

Food for Thought 2020

Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition—an essay by gyorgy scrinis.

Food corporations have exploited the dominant model in nutrition science to shape the way their ultra-processed products are defended, promoted, and regulated. Gyorgy Scrinis examines their scientific strategies and suggests ways to reframe the debate

In 2015 the New York Times revealed that Coca Cola was covertly funding the Global Energy Balance Network based at the University of Colorado, a research network set up to promote the message that all calories are equal. 1 The network’s aim was to show that sugar sweetened beverages are no more responsible for the rise in obesity levels than any other foods or a lack of physical activity. 2 In doing so, Coca Cola was copying and adapting the corporate political activities and scientific strategies that have been pioneered and perfected by tobacco, alcohol, and drug companies to defend and promote their products. 3 4

Corporate food and beverage companies such as Coca Cola have engaged in what I will refer to as “corporate scientific activities.” These activities are designed to produce and influence the scientific knowledge used to evaluate, promote, legitimise, and regulate their products. Such activities include funding and conducting in-house nutrition research related to their products; sponsoring scientific seminars and expert meetings; involvement in scientific standards and policy committees; publishing in scholarly journals; funding scientific front groups; and delivering nutrition education programmes. 2

Ultra-processed food corporations use these strategies not only to influence the nutritional knowledge related to their products but also to shape the broader concepts that frame scientists’ and the public’s understanding of food and the body. These corporations have in fact benefited from—and seek to amplify and capture—some of the methods and concepts from mainstream nutrition science. The energy balance model being promoted by Coca Cola, for example, is a standard concept used by nutrition scientists to explain weight gain and loss (ie, calories in, calories out), and which Coca Cola has attempted to appropriate and spin in a particular direction. Greater awareness of these strategies is key to recapturing the nutrition agenda and improving population health.

One common corporate scientific activity is to fund nutrition studies designed to generate favourable scientific evidence for a company’s products. 2 These studies have an inherent financial conflict of interest. Systematic evaluations of industry funded nutrition studies have—perhaps not surprisingly— found a funding bias effect, whereby study findings are more likely to favour the interests of their industry sponsors. 2

However, food corporations are also able to influence nutrition research through the types of nutrition studies they choose not to fund, producing what we might call “not funding” bias. Manufacturers of ultra-processed foods have had little interest in funding research that measures the detrimental effects of their products, and this may partly explain the neglect of such research over the past 50 years.

At the same time, these manufacturers have benefited from—and promoted and amplified—nutritionism, a reductive scientific methodology that favours the fragmented and isolated analysis of single foods and single nutrients out of the context of the foods and dietary patterns in which they’re consumed. 5 This approach has diverted attention from the study of the ingredients, additives, and processing techniques used in the manufacture of ultra-processed foods, and from the study of such products as a whole, including the dietary patterns they produce. It has also obscured the broader social, commercial, and ecological determinants of dietary health. This model has a methodological and agenda setting bias that has consistently worked in the interests of food corporations. 6

Defining harm reduction

Within this nutrient centric model, any health harms associated with ultra-processed foods are primarily attributed to their typically high concentration of particular nutrients (sodium, sugars, saturated and trans fats, etc) or energy density. In framing the harms of ultra-processed foods in this way, the solution is similarly framed as the nutritional reformulation of these products to reduce the levels of some of these nutrients. While the minimal reductions in sugars and sodium achieved are welcome, this nutrient focus distracts from the effects of the highly processed, deconstituted, and chemically transformed ingredients and additives that these products are typically constructed from ( box 1 ).

What are ultra-processed foods?

Ultra-processed foods and beverages can be defined as products with additives and industrially processed ingredients that have been technologically broken down and modified. 7 They are not merely processed foods with high levels of sugar, salt, and fat but also contain ingredients and additives not commonly used in home kitchens and artisanal restaurants, such as synthetic flavours, emulsifiers, hydrogenated oils, and soy protein isolates. The role of these ingredients is often to simulate the taste, texture, or nutritional profile of minimally processed foods.

Ultra-processed products now account for nearly half of the average dietary intake of some high income countries, with consumption rising rapidly in most other countries. Studies conducted within several countries have found that higher intake of these products is associated with the increased incidence of obesity and some chronic diseases. In low and middle income countries, these products may also be contributing to multiple forms of malnutrition.

While research is still in its relatively early stages, the health effects of ultra-processed foods may be due to a combination of the nutrients and processed ingredients these products contain and the types of ingredients and foods they displace. These products are a major contributor to poor quality dietary patterns, characterised by excessive intake of nutrients and foods such as sugar, salt, refined grains, and processed meats and relatively deficient in fibre and some micronutrients. 8 They are also designed to be easily and quickly consumed, promoting overconsumption.

The sugar, salt, and fats (as well as the additives) are in fact added to these products to mask and give flavour and texture to otherwise technologically degraded foods, and to simulate the taste of minimally processed foods and dishes. This is also why these companies are having difficulties removing sugar and salt from their products, and why these ingredients need to be replaced with other synthetic sweeteners and flavouring and texturing agents.

Even though Coca Cola has for many years been attempting to manufacture doubt about the harms of sugar, the company, along with other corporations, has come to accept the necessity of nutrient reductions as a means of providing political and scientific legitimacy for its products. This is partly because companies fear the prospect of government regulations that would require either the reduced consumption of their products, or a more substantial improvement in their quality. 9

Corporations such as Unilever, Nestlé, and Mars have instead developed their own nutrient profiling systems that set industry friendly technical standards for voluntary nutritional reformulation and are clearly hoping to deter independently developed and mandatory nutritional standards. Nestlé has also attempted to lend scientific credibility to its in-house nutrient profiling system—an example of the scientific strategy of credibility engineering—by publishing studies in academic journals to show the scientific legitimacy of its system. 10

Imagined health benefits

Nutritionism has provided a framework through which food corporations can market the nutritional and health benefits of their products. 11 While nutrition scientists and public health nutritionists have shifted their focus from nutrients to foods, dietary patterns, food environments, and ecological contexts, food corporations have stepped up to become the primary promoters and defenders of this nutrient centric model. They do so partly through the weight of their scientific research and marketing activities that focus on single nutrients or single ingredients, and that continually direct and maintain the public’s attention on these nutrients and food components.

Unlike drug corporations, food manufacturers do not need to make explicit health or disease prevention claims on their food labels to communicate health benefits to consumers. Food companies can instead rely on simple nutrient and ingredient claims on their products —such as “high” in protein, fibre, omega 3 fats, or antioxidants—which then function as implied health claims. These claims are intended to produce what we may call “imagined health benefits,” whereby consumers form a link between particular food components and their health benefits. One of the aims of nutritional marketing is to populate the imaginations of consumers so as to create nutritional halos around commercial products.

Importantly, food labelling regulations in most countries facilitate and are complicit with these implied health claims by permitting the use of nutrient content claims on most ultra-processed foods, regardless of the overall nutritional quality of the products.

Food corporations also attempt to commodify and capture the latest nutritional advances around which there is much promise and hype, such as the microbiome, plant based meat alternatives, functional and medicinal foods, and personalised nutrition. They piggyback on the promissory claims of emerging scientific innovations and trends in nutrition. Nestlé, for example, has published scientific research claiming that some heat treated (ie, dead) probiotic bacteria can provide greater gut health benefits than live bacteria, thereby paving the way for it to apply for an approved probiotic health claim on its longlife packaged products. 12

Framing the body’s nutritional requirements

Food corporations shape the scientific evidence and understanding of the body’s nutritional needs—and of diet related conditions and diseases—to position their products as solutions to these health problems. This includes shaping expert understanding of the prevalence, severity, and causes of diet related conditions such as obesity and micronutrient deficiencies, as well as the nutritional needs of infants. This is akin to the “disease mongering” that drug corporations are accused of. 13

Infant and child feeding is an area in which formula milk companies have heavily invested in primary scientific research, education, and outreach. For example, Nestlé funds research, seminars, and publications on the “first 1000 days” of an infant’s life. These emphasise the importance of—and may generate anxieties and calls for intervention into—the three year window from conception to 2 years of age. 14 At the same time, Nestlé conducts and funds research into breastmilk composition to inform the development and marketing of its infant formula and follow-on products for toddlers. 15 Its marketing implies—and allows parents to imagine—that these products are the equivalent of or better than breastmilk or home prepared foods, with mothers made to feel anxious about the quality of their breastmilk.

Food corporations exploit the conventional scientific framing of micronutrient deficiencies as distinct conditions that are caused—and able to be solved—by the absence or addition of single, isolated micronutrients. 16 Manufacturers have been aggressively marketing cheap, micronutrient fortified, ultra-processed foods in low and middle income countries as a solution to this form of malnutrition. This is a strategy for expanding sales in poor communities in these countries. At the same time, these corporations sponsor scientific meetings on specific micronutrient deficiencies targeted at experts, and they organise nutrition education campaigns in vulnerable communities to teach people about the risks of, and solutions to, their micronutrient deficiencies.

Recapturing nutrition science

The corporate capture of nutrition—while far from comprehensive or complete—is a result of the integration of various corporate scientific activities and nutritional strategies, supported and amplified by marketing and political activities. To counter this influence requires mitigating and undermining all these forms of corporate power.

Various strategies have been proposed or implemented, typically calling for greater transparency and independence of scientists, research funding, scholarly publications, and expert committees. They include proper disclosure of conflicts of interest in journal publications and for decision making committees; the refusal of industry funding and sponsorships by university scientists and professional associations; and the exclusion of industry funded studies from dietary guideline reviews. 17

Given the central role of labelling and marketing in corporate scientific strategies, recent government initiatives on food labelling and marketing in countries such as Chile and Mexico could go further still, disallowing all types of nutrient, ingredient, and health claims and restricting the marketing and availability of all ultra-processed products.

Current policies and regulations are still primarily focused on single and isolated nutrients or ingredients, and on individual products and practices of food corporations. But given that these corporations are the primary manufacturers of ultra-processed foods, we need to shift the regulatory focus to the entire ultra-processed food category, and to regulate the entire product portfolios of these corporations.

It is also important to continue to develop less reductive and more integrated dietary frameworks to underpin the research into, and regulation of, ultra-processed foods and food corporations. The challenge is not only to understand the role of the various dietary dimensions that mediate health (ie, nutrients, foods, and dietary patterns) but also to account for the role of social, commercial, and ecological determinants of health.

Such frameworks will contribute to the project of reimagining food systems that aim to provide nourishing, convenient, and minimally processed foods, and in which the harmful products and practices of ultra-processed corporations are no longer tolerated. 18

Gyorgy Scrinis is associate professor of food politics and policy in the School of Agriculture and Food at the University of Melbourne. His research draws on the philosophy and sociology of science and technology, social theory, agri-food studies, and public health nutrition. He has published on the philosophy of nutrition science, the health effects of ultra-processed foods, bias in nutrition research, corporate power, the nutritional engineering and marketing strategies of food manufacturing corporations, food labelling, animal welfare and agricultural technologies. His book Nutritionism: The Science and Politics of Dietary Advice (2013) explores the history and consequences of the reductive focus on nutrients in nutrition science and dietary guidelines.

Competing interests: I have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

This article is part of a series commissioned by The BMJ . Open access fees were paid by Swiss Re, which had no input into the commissioning or peer review of the articles. The BMJ thanks the series advisers, Nita Forouhi, Dariush Mozaffarian, and Ann Lartey for valuable advice and guiding selection of topics in the series.

Academic Support for Nursing Students

No notifications.

Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a student and not our expert nursing writers. View professional sample essays here.

View full disclaimer

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this essay are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NursingAnswers.net. This essay should not be treated as an authoritative source of information when forming medical opinions as information may be inaccurate or out-of-date.

The Harmful Effects Of Processed Foods Health Essay

Info: 1747 words (7 pages) Nursing Essay Published: 11th Feb 2020

Reference this

Tagged: healthy eating

If you need assistance with writing your nursing essay, our professional nursing essay writing service is here to help!

Opposing views: Benefits of processed foods

Our nursing and healthcare experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have, from simple essay plans, through to full nursing dissertations.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Related Services

• Nursing Essay Writing Service

• Nursing Dissertation Service

• Reflective Writing Service

Related Content

Content relating to: "healthy eating"

Food is the most important thing in our lives besides water. Moreover, healthy eating means eating a variety of food that gives you the nutrients you need to maintain your health, feel good, and have energy. These nutrients include protein, carbohydrate, fat, water, vitamin, and minerals.

Related Articles

Processed foods are areal food that has undergone several processes so that it can be kept safe for human consumption or for convenience. It is food that has been infused with chemicals, preservatives...

Benefits of Healthy Eating

Health Eating Studies show that by improving personal eating habits can prevent some of the leading causes of death in the world, such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, some lung diseases and injuri...

The Benefits of Healthy Eating Health Essay

Can a person eat healthy and live without many health problems? By eating and following the food pyramid a person can live a long and healthy life. Knowing the effects of not eating healthy and the benefits of eating healthy throughout a person’s life is important....

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on the NursingAnswers.net website then please:

Our academic writing and marking services can help you!

• Marking Service
• Samples of our Work
• Full Service Portfolio

Related Lectures

Study for free with our range of nursing lectures!

• Drug Classification
• Emergency Care
• Health Observation
• Palliative Care
• Professional Values

Write for Us

Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher in nursing or healthcare?

Study Resources

Free resources to assist you with your nursing studies!

• APA Citation Tool
• Example Nursing Essays
• Example Nursing Assignments
• Example Nursing Case Studies
• Reflective Nursing Essays
• Nursing Literature Reviews
• Free Resources
• Reflective Model Guides
• Nursing and Healthcare Pay 2021