The backlash against ultra-processed food risks forcing women back to the kitchen, a leading nutritionist has said.<\/p>\n
Ian Marber<\/a> said the movement against convenience foods overlooked the freedom they had given women from spending hours preparing meals for their families.<\/p>\n The founder of the Food Doctor, a wellness brand, said ultra-processed foods (UPFs)<\/a> had been unfairly demonised, despite many providing affordable and useful nutrition.<\/p>\n \u201cI think this is a feminist thing,\u201d he said. \u201cUPF and processed food has allowed women not to be tied to the kitchen.<\/p>\n \u201cPeople can get out and do other things and live your life another way, rather than being a provider for the family and cooking the whole time.\u201d<\/p>\n Mr Marber said alarm about UPFs was also giving people \u201cone more thing for us to worry about, which we don\u2019t need\u201d.<\/p>\n He said vegan burgers<\/a>, nut cutlets and protein shakes could all be classed as ultra-processed, but could have a perfectly legitimate place in a healthy diet.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s no such thing as a bad food, only a bad diet,\u201d he told a health event in Brighton, supported by cholesterol-lowering food brand Benecol. \u201cSome ultra-processed food is absolutely fine.\u201d<\/p>\n The comments come amid an increasingly heated debate about whether industrial processing itself damages health, or whether the problem lies with particular foods.<\/p>\n Foods classified as ultra-processed generally contain ingredients or additives rarely used in domestic kitchens and include many ready meals, cereals and packaged snacks.<\/p>\n Mixed picture on UPFs<\/p>\n A 2024 review<\/a> of data from almost 10 million people linked higher UPF consumption with 32 adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and premature death.<\/p>\n However, most of the evidence was observational, making it difficult to establish whether processing itself was responsible or other dietary and lifestyle factors explained the findings.<\/p>\n Britain\u2019s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) has also urged caution about the evidence.<\/p>\n Its latest review found some types of UPF were associated with poorer health, while others, including vegetarian alternatives, were not.<\/p>\n Results were mixed for categories including breads and cereals, dairy products, ready-to-eat foods, sauces and spreads.<\/p>\n SACN said it was difficult to separate the effects of processing from factors including calories, nutritional quality, obesity and socioeconomic circumstances.<\/p>\n However, another controlled experiment found people offered an ultra-processed diet ate more calories than those given minimally processed foods.<\/p>\n Mr Marber said people should instead concentrate on the basics, including getting enough protein<\/a> and fibre<\/a>, while eating food they enjoyed.<\/p>\n \u201cIf you don\u2019t enjoy what you eat, you won\u2019t do it for very long,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n