The 2025 Joe Wicks documentary on \u201ckiller protein bars\u201d highlights how even well-intentioned attempts to raise awareness about food can sometimes oversimplify complex public health issues. The show\u2019s premise \u2013 to develop and market a supposedly \u201cdangerous,\u201d additive-laden \u201cultra-processed\u201d food to prompt government action \u2013 aims to spark debate about the modern food system. <\/p>\n
But framing foods as inherently \u201cdangerous\u201d risks distorting the science and adding to public confusion about nutrition.<\/p>\n
Stoking fear around ultra-processed foods<\/a> (UPFs) often provokes psychological resistance, leading people to ignore health messages altogether or, paradoxically, to double down on the behaviour being criticised. The \u201cprocessed equals bad\u201d narrative can also fuel guilt, anxiety and disordered eating<\/a> and stigmatises foods that are widely eaten, particularly by people on lower incomes.<\/p>\n Read more: The misinformation in the show adds to what the World Health Organization<\/a> calls an \u201cinfodemic\u201d \u2013 the rapid spread of false or misleading health information. Nutrition has become one of the most misinformation-prone topics on social media, where personal opinion is often presented as scientific fact. A 2023 review<\/a> found widespread inaccuracies in online dietary advice, adding to public confusion and distrust of science.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The evidence linking UPFs to poor health is far from conclusive. Systematic reviews<\/a> show that many studies reporting associations between UPFs and disease rely on observational data rated as low or very low quality. This means it cannot prove that UPFs cause disease. The latest review of research<\/a> found that the UPF category adds little scientific value when assessing links between diet and disease.<\/p>\n Yet even among scientists, there is no clear agreement on how to classify them. Research found<\/a> that both consumers and nutrition experts struggled to consistently identify which foods met the criteria for being \u201cultra-processed\u201d. Despite this uncertainty, around 65% of Europeans<\/a> believe that UPFs are bad for their health.<\/p>\n Part of the problem lies in how the term is used. \u201cUltra-processed food\u201d has become a catch-all phrase, often used to promote ideological views about modern food systems instead of being applied as a precise scientific category. The NOVA classification<\/a>, which first introduced the concept, was intended as a research framework, not a moral ranking of foods. But, over time, it has been reinterpreted as a shorthand for \u201cgood\u201d versus \u201cbad\u201d eating.<\/p>\n We have long understood that certain foods high in salt, sugar and saturated fat \u2013 traditionally called \u201cjunk food<\/a>\u201d \u2013 are not good for health. Rebranding these as UPFs adds little to that knowledge and risks distracting attention from the real structural issues that determine what people eat. These include the affordability of healthy foods, aggressive marketing of unhealthy ones and inequalities in time, income and access to cooking facilities.<\/p>\n
\n Ultra-processed foods might not be the real villain in our diets \u2013 here\u2019s what our research found<\/a><\/p>\n