Buzz
Research has connected ultra-processed foods to higher risks of cancer, heart disease, and dementia. These items often include fast food and mass-produced snacks, which many would classify as junk food. However, focusing solely on the level of processing raises more questions than it resolves.
Who has the authority to determine what qualifies as 'ultra-processed'?
The classification of ultra-processed foods, as referenced in these studies, originates from a system called NOVA, which categorizes foods into four distinct groups.
Category 1 encompasses edible plants, animals, animal products, and fungi, which remain in this group even after minimal processing like drying. (Examples include grapes and raisins.)
Category 2 consists of sugars, oils, salt, and their combinations, such as salted butter.
Category 3 involves mixtures of the above, with most home-cooked meals fitting into this classification.
Category 4 is labeled as 'ultra-processed,' covering foods with industrial additives and ready-to-eat meals.
While I understand the need for scientists to categorize different cuisines, this system lacks consistency. As previously discussed, liquor is deemed ultra-processed, whereas wine is not. A pre-made burger falls into the ultra-processed category, but a steak served with a roll does not.
This seems like an effort to artificially separate foods that are nutritionally alike. For instance, sweetened cranberry juice is classified as ultra-processed, while grape juice with the same natural sugar content is not. The official definitions and examples can be found here.
What specifically makes ultra-processed foods harmful to our health?
If research compared similar foods and identified processing as the harmful factor, that would be a significant scientific discovery. However, the studies highlighting the dangers of ultra-processed foods do not follow this approach.
These studies often rely on participants recalling their recent diets—a method widely regarded as unreliable and, as some researchers have argued, 'fatally flawed.' The foods are then evaluated using the NOVA scale. If conducted properly, researchers will account for variables like income, as many inexpensive foods are ultra-processed and more likely consumed by lower-income individuals.
From this, researchers often conclude that those consuming the most ultra-processed foods face a higher risk of certain health issues compared to those who don’t. But does this truly reveal anything meaningful about processed foods?
Not necessarily. Even if factors like income, smoking, and others are controlled for, the foods themselves may not be directly comparable. Is the problem the salt, sugar, specific preservatives, colorings, or texture additives in ultra-processed foods?
We can’t derive reliable nutrition advice from these studies.
While it’s tempting to assume all processed foods are harmful, the data doesn’t specify which ones or why. The NOVA system itself shows that nutritionally similar foods, like cranberry juice and grape juice, can fall into entirely different categories based on their origins.
In a recent press release discussing a study linking ultra-processed foods to cancer, the lead author advocated for clear front-of-package warning labels to guide consumer decisions. However, the release concluded by noting that the study was observational and could not establish a causal relationship, emphasizing the need for further research.
From a scientific perspective, the study is intriguing and credible. It lays the groundwork for future research to determine what aspects of the identified diets might be beneficial or harmful.
The issue arises when we interpret these early findings as definitive warnings against specific foods. The term 'ultra-processed' is not nutritionally defined, and if the real concerns are sugar and salt content, the problem lies there—not in whether a burger is purchased from a fast-food chain (Group 4) or homemade (Group 3).
