But the debate around ultraprocessed foods is not nearly as settled as it may seem. As a researcher who studies social movements<\/a> for healthy and sustainable food, I have been documenting the history of processed foods<\/a> and examining debates around the science and politics of ultraprocessing<\/a>.<\/p>\n In basic terms, ultraprocessed foods are mass-produced, industrial formulations<\/a> that use ingredients not typically found in a home kitchen, and that generally contain little to no intact whole foods. <\/p>\n Yet the very definition of ultraprocessed is highly contested<\/a>. While a growing number of advocates say that ultraprocessing is dangerous to public health, skeptics counter<\/a> that the fervor around the topic has become a moral panic, and insist that some ultraprocessed foods can be part of a healthy diet. <\/p>\n A brief history of food processing<\/p>\n People have been processing food<\/a> \u2013 that is, transforming crops and animals into food ingredients and products \u2013 for all of human history. Cooking, which historians generally consider the first form of food processing<\/a>, goes back as far as 2 million years. In the millennia and centuries that followed, people developed and refined other traditional food processing methods, including grinding, baking, fermenting, drying and pressing.<\/p>\n New types of food processing<\/a> were created during the industrial age, beginning in the mid-18th century. Canning, pasteurization<\/a> and refrigeration were among the major innovations that reshaped not only how people eat but society as a whole<\/a>.<\/p>\n Before that time, nearly all food was local food \u2013 that is, produced within a few dozen miles \u2013 and people consumed fresh foods quickly to avoid spoilage. Food processing promised to improve food safety, shelf life, quality, convenience, taste and healthfulness. The world became more urbanized as regional and international supply chains developed. Geographically dispersed farmers were connected to retailers and consumers across the newly modern food system<\/a>.<\/p>\n From the mid-20th into the 21st century, food manufacturers added a host of complex technological innovations to the food processing playbook. Their efforts made processed foods more standardized for the mass market and more convenient for consumers. But public health experts warned that processed junk foods<\/a> were packed with salt, sugar and saturated fat<\/a> \u2013 problematic nutrients<\/a> linked to obesity, diabetes and other diet-related diseases. <\/p>\n Food processing and the NOVA framework<\/p>\n By the mid-2000s, some healthy food advocates began to argue that the nature and extent of food processing, rather than the presence of specific problematic nutrients<\/a>, explained diet-related chronic disease. The journalist Michael Pollan famously implored his audience to avoid \u201cedible food-like substances<\/a>.\u201d Instead, he advised: \u201cEat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.\u201d<\/p>\n Brazilian epidemiologist Carlos Monteiro coined the term \u201cultraprocessing\u201d in 2009 as part of his work on what he and colleagues called the NOVA classification<\/a>. The NOVA framework establishes a four-category system<\/a> that characterizes a food based on its level of processing. <\/p>\n According to the NOVA classification developed by Brazilian epidemiologist Carlos Monteiro, ultraprocessed foods are defined as industrially manufactured food products that would be impossible to make at home. NOVA Category 1 includes unprocessed or minimally processed plant or animal foods that are close to their natural state and contain no additives. Category 2 refers to processed culinary ingredients \u2013 that is, products derived from Category 1 via pressing, grinding or similar techniques. Category 3 describes processed foods made by combining Category 1 and Category 2 using traditional methods, such as baking, boiling or canning.<\/p>\n NOVA Category 4 foods are ultraprocessed foods, often described as industrially manufactured food products that can\u2019t be made at home. Examples of ultraprocessing include separating whole foods into substances, chemically formulating foods or using cosmetic additives such as food dyes. <\/p>\n According to the framework, corporations design ultraprocessed foods to be convenient, hyperpalatable and highly profitable<\/a>. They are packaged attractively, marketed intensively and intended to displace other food groups.<\/p>\n Today, ultraprocessed foods make up an increasingly large share of global diets<\/a>. They account for more than 50% of total calories in the United States<\/a>, with many low- and-middle income nations<\/a> not far behind. <\/p>\n Unsettled science<\/p>\n Since the NOVA framework emerged, researchers have tried to test whether food processing can explain how certain foods affect people\u2019s health.<\/p>\n The vast majority of this work has explored correlations between consuming ultraprocessed foods and developing health problems. One consistent result stands out: People who consume more ultraprocessed foods<\/a> are at higher risk for multiple chronic diseases and early death.<\/p>\n However, even that conclusion is more complex than it appears. It turns out that certain categories of ultraprocessed foods<\/a> \u2013 such as sweetened beverages like sodas and processed meats like deli meats \u2013 are consistently associated with negative health outcomes including heart disease and stroke. But other ultraprocessed products \u2013 breads, cold cereals, yogurt and even savory snacks \u2013 have actually been correlated with lower rates of these health problems. <\/p>\n Still other ultraprocessed foods \u2013 including sauces, condiments and ready-to-heat dishes like frozen dinners \u2013 show no consistent links to people\u2019s health one way or the other.<\/p>\n Only a handful of clinical trials that can actually show cause and effect have explored ultraprocessed foods\u2019 effects on health<\/a>. One prominent study did find that participants who ate a diet of ultraprocessed foods for two weeks consumed more calories and gained more weight<\/a> than participants who followed a minimally processed diet, but other experiments have found no clear effect<\/a>. What\u2019s more, these studies generally last just a few weeks \u2013 far too short a time frame to draw conclusions about long-term health impacts. <\/p>\n Many researchers point to studies linking ultraprocessed foods to chronic illnesses, though the ties are not as clear-cut as they might appear.<\/p>\n A tricky definition<\/p>\n Some food science researchers are unsurprised by these mixed findings, arguing that the definition of \u201cultraprocessed\u201d is ambiguous and frequently subjective<\/a>. For example, a cake prepared by a home baker would be considered a NOVA Category 3 \u201cprocessed food.\u201d But if that same cake were industrially manufactured<\/a> using a commercial preservative, then packaged and sold at a grocery store, it would become a NOVA Category 4 \u201cultraprocessed food\u201d \u2013 even if the two cakes were nutritionally identical. <\/p>\n Fundamentally, many nutrition scientists remain unconvinced that processing alone<\/a> can explain why certain foods are associated with poor health. Instead, they emphasize that unhealthy ultraprocessed foods frequently have poor nutritional profiles and other qualities that make them easy to overeat. And they argue that making ultraprocessed foods healthier<\/a>, not getting rid of them entirely, can improve public health. <\/p>\n Vilifying ultraprocessed foods may have harms, they suggest, like creating unnecessary fear<\/a> and promoting disordered eating<\/a>. It can also stigmatize eco-friendly, plant-based meats<\/a> or ultraprocessed products such as baby formula that are designed for clinical nutrition<\/a>. <\/p>\n The wholesale rejection of ultraprocessed foods could also make life more difficult for families<\/a> who rely on the convenience and affordability the products offer.<\/p>\n Processing versus nutrients<\/p>\n On the other hand, many food policy and public health researchers maintain that the common definition of ultraprocessed<\/a> is clear enough<\/a>, especially if exceptions are made for healthy ultraprocessed foods. They also note that many supporters of ultraprocessed foods have ties to the food industry<\/a>. They insist that the existing evidence is strong enough to take immediate policy action<\/a>, including making changes to how ultraprocessed foods are produced, purchased and marketed. <\/p>\n Regulating ultraprocessed foods wouldn\u2019t just benefit public health<\/a>, advocates argue. It could also help rein in harms to food culture, business and the environment<\/a>. <\/p>\n In this sense, ultraprocessed foods are a symptom of a bigger problem: an unsustainable industrial food system<\/a> that is dominated by a handful of corporations. That argument, of course, is plenty contested too<\/a>. <\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/file-20261015-50-m558be.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n Anastasia Usenko\/iStock via Getty Images Plus<\/a><\/p>\n