Ultraforarbejdet food is misunderstood, argue a trio of researchers in a new analysis

Ultra-processed foods (UPF) have gained a bad reputation in health debates, but according to a new scientific analysis, the criticism is misguided. It is unlikely that the processing itself makes them unhealthy, but rather what is added to the products that makes them more or less unhealthy for us. This conclusion is drawn by three researchers who have reinterpreted five existing randomized studies in the field. These five studies are often cited as evidence that ultra-processed foods are inherently harmful, but according to the three researchers—Eric Robinson, professor at the University of Liverpool, Faidon Magkos, professor at the University of Copenhagen, and Ciarán G. Forde, professor at Wageningen University & Research—they do not provide sufficient evidence that the effects are due to the processing itself. The effects can largely be explained by classic nutritional differences—energy density, texture, fiber content, saturated fat, salt levels—that typically, but not always, accompany ultra-processed foods. "Food processing is generally a good thing—it improves safety, extends shelf life, and makes food cheaper and more accessible. The problem arises when the term 'UPF' places these beneficial forms of processing in the same category as nutritionally poor, calorie-dense foods that are consumed quickly. Therefore, it is not appropriate to consider 'UPFs' as a particularly dangerous category, as this risks misleading both health professionals and the public," says lead author Faidon Magkos, according to the Financial Times. UPFs are defined as "mixtures of ingredients, mainly for exclusive industrial use," typically involving techniques such as shaping, pre-cooking, and the use of additives to enhance flavor. The concept of UPF was introduced by Carlos Monteiro, a professor at the University of São Paulo, who led the development of the food classification system Nova. In this system, foods are divided into four groups based on the degree of processing, with UPFs in the top category. An important reminder Seamus Higgins, a lecturer in food process engineering at the University of Nottingham and not involved in the analysis, believes it is an important reminder that research in this area is far from conclusive. "The article presents a well-founded and scientifically credible perspective, especially when highlighting the challenges of separating the effects of food processing from factors like calorie density, fiber content, texture, and eating speed. However, it should not be interpreted as a rejection of the broader scientific basis," he says in a comment to the Science Media Centre. Sumanto Haldar, a lecturer in nutritional science at Bournemouth University, believes that the analysis's conclusions are generally well-supported and credible. "The article distances itself from the exaggerated demonization of processing itself. It is other nutritional properties of our diet—such as protein content, fiber, and the composition of nutrients like vitamins, minerals, and other phytochemicals (e.g., polyphenols, carotenoids, etc.)—that together contribute to the nutritional density of foods, which is likely of greater importance," he tells the Science Media Centre. He cites as an example that lycopene, a naturally occurring carotenoid with health benefits found in tomatoes, has greater bioavailability in tomato paste and sauces than in raw tomatoes. Criticism of the analysis Jules Griffin, a professor and director of The Rowett Institute at the University of Aberdeen, is somewhat more critical of the analysis's conclusions. He believes it overlooks significant alternative explanations and particularly notes the authors' criticism that the studies do not account for the soft texture of ultra-processed foods. "But that was not the main purpose of the earlier studies, and soft texture is precisely one of the explanations that has been proposed for why ultra-processed foods are consumed in excessive amounts," he tells the Science Media Centre. Griffin also points out that the high content of salt, free sugars, and saturated fats explains part of the link to poor health, but the risk of cardiovascular disease and death from all causes in large observational studies still persists when adjusting for individual nutrients such as sugar, saturated fat, salt, and fiber. The analysis was published in the journal Science, and it should be noted that it was supported by both public and private organizations, including Arla Food for Health, a research collaboration between the University of Copenhagen, Aarhus University, and the dairy divisions of Arla Foods.