‘Ultra-processed’ does not automatically equate to ‘unhealthy’

They have been called “poison”, “addictive” and “junk”, but however you describe ultra-processed foods (UPFs), it is clear they are the nutritional bogeyman du jour. That fear is reasonable, given their consumption has been linked to a dizzying array of health effects, from obesity and type 2 diabetes, to anxiety and depression.

…

Even so, we think all-out UPF panic needs to give way to a more nuanced conversation. It is a mistake to paint flavoured yogurt and wholegrain bread with the same scaremongering brush as cakes and sugary cereal. Just because a food is ultra-processed doesn’t mean it is unhealthy.

Related on the SLP

Viewpoint: Tampering down hysteria on ultra-processed foods  Viewpoint: Lancet’s reputation as a leading science journal takes another hit in its capitulation to MAHA fearmongering over ultra-processed food

Viewpoint: Dubious environmental fears: Why the AI buildout is critical to America’s ecological future

Vitamin D, omega-3 fish oil and glucosamine supplements could cause brain damage 

Child-monitoring apps: When the cure is worse than the harm—and how the technology could be tweaked

Some UPFs are already considered healthy by the FDA’s standard (again, think wholegrain bread or yogurt). … Many of us also rely on the likes of UPF pasta sauces, hummus, frozen dinners, canned beans, bouillons and breads, which can be an easy and affordable part of a healthy diet. That is why being specific about which UPFs are most likely to cause harm is important.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here