The Growing Roar of Condemnation for Ultra-Processed Foods
“Big food is taking over,” says Barry Popkin, adding an exclamation point in the New York Times to a growing roar of condemnation for ultra-processed foods. The occasion for this is the publication of three new papers – plus an editorial – all at once in The Lancet this week. Popkin was an author on two of those papers. One of them proposed policies to reverse the rise of ultra-processed foods. The other called for “unified global action” for the purpose of “countering corporate power.” He stopped short of an explicit call for ending greed and evil, but that would not be a bad idea.
Laura Schmidt is a professor of health policy at the University of California, San Francisco. Though she was not an author on any of this she gave the Times a concise summary of the scientific rationalization for all of this agitation:
“There are massive amounts of data, and it shows over and over again – this stuff harms people’s bodies.”
A Still Small Voice of Dissent
Built into this barrage in Lancet is a pre-emptive dismissal of anyone who would dare to sound a note of caution. They are merely tools of “corporate power” and “confronting the power of the UPF industry is essential.”
And yet, we note a still small voice of dissent from someone who is hardly a corporate shill – David Ludwig, a Harvard professor of public health. He writes in the New England Journal of Medicine about limitations of the Nova system that identifies ultra-processed foods as the problem:
“Nova may represent an important conceptual advance in long-standing efforts to reduce the burden of chronic disease caused by modern, commodity-based diets of highly processed foods. Nonetheless, it is unclear whether the Nova classification system — which considers processing, additives, and preparation venue with the use of a single metric — can be codified at a national level to support public health.”
Seek the Truth
Everyone loves a righteous cause and we are no exception to this. But righteousness should be grounded in truth. Finding the truth about the harms and benefits of ultra-processed foods is quite a tricky pursuit. The health or harm that results from consuming them can be very different in different situations. It depends on the individual foods one consumes and the larger context of the diet and life circumstances of the people consuming them. Gross generalizations can be grossly misleading. The truth about ultra-processed foods has nuance that often gets lost.
We are well down the path of condemnation for ultra-processed foods. But it is not too late for caution in proceeding with this righteous campaign to “confront corporate power and greed.” Righteous zeal sometimes comes with blind spots. Take heed.
Click here for all three articles and the editorial in Lancet. For free access to reporting on this from the Times, click here. For notes of moderation from Ludwig and others, click here, here, and here.
Sweet Chaos, photograph by Ted Kyle / ConscienHealth
Subscribe by email to follow the accumulating evidence and observations that shape our view of health, obesity, and policy.
November 20, 2025
November 20, 2025 at 10:52 am, Richard Atkinson said:
Very good column Ted. History, particularly Nutrition history, is full of “experts” saying “nevermind” when an obsession is shown to be baseless or less dangerous than trumpeted. The war on processed foods has reached the level of obsession. There are too many exaggerations to mention, but take hot dogs. Hot dogs have “nitrates” that cause cancer. Nitrates in hot dogs are “artificial”, so much worse than natural nitrates. In truth, nitrates are the same whether “natural” or “artificial.” A serving of spinach has 741 mg of nitrates. A hot dog has 10 mg per dog. Sadly, many “expert” dietitians spout this nonsense. Unfortunately, what is on the internet in the way of nutrition recommendations on “processed foods” has almost reached the level that it can be ignored. An infrequent serving of almost all types of “ultra-processed” food is not going to harm your heath.
November 20, 2025 at 1:40 pm, KEITH AYOOB, EdD, RDN, FAND, CDN said:
You’re right — “The truth about ultra-processed foods has nuance that often gets lost.” And therein lies the rub. We still have no consensus definition of UPFs and relying on NOVA is a mistake — it’s an ingredient index, not a nutrition index. And the nuances can demonize many good foods, such as canned beans that have calcium chloride added or Greek yogurt that has potassium sorbate to prevent spoilage. Lumping in those foods with pink and blue candy seems absurd. More attention to clarity and nuance would be wise.
One could even argue that the developers of NOVA, some of whom are involved in the 3-paper Lancet issue, would want to fight to defend the NOVA index.
Going forward, is the UPF topic moot, if consumers are less willing than ever to prepare more of their meals at home? And without the convenience foods they are used to? I hope they would be willing to do so, even though it means more time in the kitchen and more effort. But they’d probably have better diets for it.
November 21, 2025 at 7:54 am, David Brown said:
In this age of hyper-specialized research, it seems fair to characterize those who promote narrow interpretatons of data as monomaniacal. Being monomaniacal means showing an excessive interest or obsession with one thing, often ignoring everything else. Its antonyms describe someone who holds a variety of interests or opinions, remains emotionally detached, or displays a balanced approach instead of zealotry or fanaticism.