Ultra-Processed Foods, Unpacked: What Are They Really
UPFs are industrial formulations made from highly refined ingredients such as starches, sugars, seed oils, and protein isolates, typically devoid of intact food matrices. They are enhanced with additives (flavors, colorants, emulsifiers, and preservatives) to promote hyper-palatability and shelf-life. Nowadays, these foods are commonly replacing nutrient-dense, minimally processed diets and contributing to sharp increases in non-communicable diseases and nutritional deficiencies.
Research estimates that 70 to 90% of the product portfolios of global food corporations now consist of ultra-processed items. In the United States, over 70% of packaged food products are classified as UPFs, while in countries such as Australia and the UK, UPFs account for over half of total daily caloric intake.
Recent international data further revealed that children are particularly exposed. In the US, ⅔ of the calories consumed by young people now comes from UPFs. Even in countries like France, renowned for “healthy eating”, UPFs now account for almost half of children’s diets , compared to one third in adults. Perhaps surprisingly, organic products are not exempt, as nearly half fall into the UPF category. This trend is mirrored globally, with annual per capita UPF consumption reaching 100 kilograms in Western Europe and 120 kilograms in North America.
When Convenience Costs Lives: The Health Effects of UPFs
A growing body of scientific evidence now directly links ultra-processed food consumption to a wide range of adverse health outcomes and significantly increased risks of obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, depression, and premature mortality.
UPFs are not only linked with negative health effects, but they are also fundamentally less nourishing. As nutrition biologist Marit Kolby explains:
“One of the problems is that ultra-processed foods are less nourishing. We have excellent data supporting that they have less vitamins and minerals than whole foods or diets made from whole foods. But they also have less of these protective components, like antioxidants, phytochemicals, or fiber.”
In other words, eating UPFs not only exposes us to harmful additives and processing byproducts but also subtracts the health-protective compounds naturally present in whole foods.
The data is compelling: Numerous high-quality studies have established strong associations between ultra-processed food consumption and adverse health outcomes. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis published in The BMJ found that individuals with the highest UPF intake had a 24% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to those with the lowest intake. Similarly, a large U.S. cohort study published in JAMA Network Open reported that high UPF consumption was linked to a 50% increased risk of depression among women.
As journalist Johanna Blythman puts it:
“We had a hunch that a diet of ultra-processed foods wasn’t going to do our health any good, the scientific evidence now shows that hunch is correct.”
The pursuit of dietary convenience comes at a high cost; it simultaneously elevates health risks and diminishes essential nutritional value, an unsettling compromise with potentially fatal outcomes.
From Staples to Snacks: The Displacement of Traditional Diets
Once considered a problem of affluent societies, the rise of UPFs is now a significant concern in low- and middle-income countries. UPFs are now being disproportionately consumed by lower socioeconomic groups, driven by their affordability, long shelf life, and relentless marketing.
From 2010 to 2024, there has been a dramatic increase in UPF sales in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In urban Nigeria, UPFs now constitute nearly 30% of household caloric intake. In Bangladesh, preschool UPF consumption rose by 22% between 2018 and 2024. In Egypt and Pakistan, ultra-processed snacks and sugary beverages have become commonplace in school lunchboxes, even among low-income families.
This shift contributes to the “double burden” of malnutrition, as undernutrition persists, and obesity, which is also on the rise. In Brazil, UPFs now make up 13 to 21% of total dietary intake, but among urban youth these figures are rapidly increasing. In Mexico, one-third of children are now overweight or obese and in South Africa, rates of adolescent obesity have also doubled over the last decade. These figures have all correlated with a rise in instant foods, sugary drinks, and convenience snacks.
Food corporations in these markets promote their products as modern, convenient, and even sustainable. Greenwashing and “nutri-washing” (such as labeling sugar-laden cereals as “plant-based” or “high-protein”) are widespread tactics that blur the line between health and commercial messaging.
The Nourishment Table: A Smarter, Science-Backed Way to Eat
To address these complex challenges, a team of nutrition scientists led by Professor Frederic Leroy of Vrije Universiteit Brussels introduced the Nourishment Table in December 2024. The framework moves beyond simplistic dietary guidelines and focuses on a dual-axis model instead, nutrient density and food processing level. Its goal is to offer a more practical and adaptable approach to “adequate nourishment,” rather than relying on generic notions of “healthy eating.”
The Nourishment Table acknowledges that not all food processing is harmful. It encourages moderate, traditional methods such as drying, fermenting, and curing, which can improve food safety, nutrient preservation, and flavor. However, it firmly warns against industrial ultra-processing that strips foods of their nutritional integrity and saturates them with cosmetic additives. According to the Table, optimal diets should ideally contain 25-30% of nutrient-dense, animal-sourced foods such as meat, dairy, eggs, and fish. These foods provide essential micronutrients often missing in plant-only or UPF-based diets, including B12, zinc, calcium, and high-quality protein.
The Table stands out as it accommodates economic, geographical, and cultural realities. It avoids ideological biases, acknowledges the necessity of nutrient-dense foods in many populations, and challenges deceptive marketing practices by major food corporations. It invites policymakers to rethink food system reform not as a transition to plant-based industrial foods, but as a return to real, nutrient-rich meals grounded in traditional food cultures.
Fueling Change: The Path To Better Health Through What We Eat Is Far From Clear
World Health Day is more than symbolic. It reminds us that what we eat profoundly affects our health and sense of well-being. Many people who have the luxury to choose what they eat or drink each day, often make poor choices, influenced often by convenience or corrupted taste preferences. National and multinational dietary recommendations have failed to halt the massive shift away from simple, single ingredient meals towards processed or ultra-processed alternatives.
In the end, food choice for those lucky enough to be able to decide, is about self-responsibility. The role of publicly or privately funded organisations who influence dietary choice should therefore be to create awareness, break the current narrative, abolish dogma and open the debate as to how we empower people to eat their way to better health.
References
- Lane, M. M., Davis, J. A., Beattie, S., Gómez-Donoso, C., Loughman, A., O’Neil, A., & Jacka, F. N. (2024). Ultra-processed food and chronic non-communicable diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 45 observational studies. BMJ, 384, e077310. https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-077310
- Samuthpongtorn, C., et al. (2023). Association Between Intake of Ultra-processed Foods and Risk of Depression. JAMA Network Open, 6(9), e2334421. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.34421
- Monteiro, C. A., Cannon, G., Moubarac, J. C., Levy, R. B., Louzada, M. L. C., & Jaime, P. C. (2018). The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing. Public Health Nutrition, 21(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980017000234
- Juul, F., Vaidean, G., Lin, Y., Deierlein, A. L., & Parekh, N. (2021). Ultra-Processed Foods and Cardiovascular Disease: An Analysis of the Framingham Offspring Study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 77(12), 1520–1531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.01.047
- Srour, B., Touvier, M., Kesse-Guyot, E., et al. (2019). Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé). BMJ, 365, l1451. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1451
- Lane, M. M., Davis, J. A., Beattie, S., Gómez-Donoso, C., Loughman, A., O’Neil, A., & Jacka, F. N. (2023). Ultra-processed food and chronic noncommunicable diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 45 observational studies. BMJ, 384, e077310. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077310
- Samuthpongtorn, C., et al. (2023). Association between intake of ultra-processed foods and risk of depression. JAMA Network Open, 6(9), e2334421. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.34421
- Moubarac, J. C., Batal, M., Louzada, M. L., Steele, E. M., Monteiro, C. A. (2017). Consumption of ultra-processed foods predicts diet quality in Canada. Appetite, 108, 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.006
- Cediel, G., Reyes, M., da Costa Louzada, M. L., Martinez Steele, E., Monteiro, C. A., & Corvalán, C. (2021). Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the Chilean diet. Public Health Nutrition, 24(5), 1045–1057. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898002000424X
- Kolby, M. (2024). Commentary on Nutritional Impact of Ultra-Processed Foods
- Blythman, J. (2024). Why Is the American Diet So Deadly? The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/01/13/why-is-the-american-diet-so-deadly
- Leroy, F. et al. (2024). The Nourishment Table: A Framework for Evaluating Food Quality Based on Nutrient Density and Processing Level. Food Systems Journal, Advance Online Publication.https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfae032
- Popkin, B. M., & Reardon, T. (2018). Obesity and the food system transformation in Latin America. Obesity Reviews, 19(8), 1028–1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12694