The Scourge -- Or Not -- Of "Ultraprocessed Foods"

“Ultraprocessed foods.” That sounds really bad. In fact, not just really bad, but really, really bad. Bad on a level with, maybe, “assault rifles” or “cis-heteronormativity.” Definitely, with a condemnatory name like that, “ultraprocessed foods” would be something that no sensible person would ever eat, or at least certainly not in large quantities.

The term “ultraprocessed foods” has been in usage for a while, but the frequency seems to have exploded everywhere in the past few months. Perhaps that has resulted from the naming of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services. Kennedy has made a thing about proclaiming a health crisis in the U.S., which he asserts is substantially brought about by our “broken food system.” On November 15 — just after President-elect Trump tapped Kennedy to lead HHS in the new administration — The New York Times had a piece outlining Kennedy’s critiques of the “food system.” Number one on the list of Kennedy’s critiques identified by the NYT was “ultraprocessed food.”

After reading this, I thought it might be time for me to get on top of what this “ultraprocessed food” stuff might be. Is this something that you need to really be concerned about, or is it just another one of the usual scare tactics of the left to try to take more control of your life? The answer, as will not surprise you, is the latter.

Fortunately, I went into this investigation comfortable in the knowledge that this “ultraprocessed foods” thing had little or nothing to do with me. I only eat the healthiest of the healthy. For example, yesterday for dinner for Mrs. MC and myself, I went to the store and bought a fresh salmon filet, some new potatoes, and a head of broccoli — the freshest of possible “whole” foods. I sautéed the salmon in a pan, and for the potatoes and broccoli, I mixed them in a bowl with just some oil and salt and roasted them in the oven. Delicious! And also, the farthest thing possible from “ultraprocessed food.” Or so you might think.

And then, to begin my research, I followed a link in The New York Times piece cited above, and came to this April 21, 2023 article in Nature Communications, one of the many affiliate publications of the premier British science journal Nature. Or maybe I should put the word “science” there in scare quotes, because Nature has so thoroughly disgraced itself by falling for and propagating the climate scam, let alone who knows what other pseudoscience. But for whatever residual level of credibility they may have left, I was still surprised to learn that the article claimed that some 73% of the U.S. food supply is “ultraprocessed.” How is such a high level even possible? This seemingly very precise figure had supposedly been determined by a new “machine learning algorithm”:

Here we introduce a machine learning algorithm that accurately predicts the degree of processing for any food, indicating that over 73% of the US food supply is ultra-processed.

And how about this to scare you:

We show that the increased reliance of an individual’s diet on ultra-processed food correlates with higher risk of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, angina, elevated blood pressure and biological age, and reduces the bio-availability of vitamins.

Here is another piece from Harvard Health Publishing, June 17, 2024, with the title “Ultra-processed foods? Just say no.” The thesis, based on “new research,” is that consumption of “ultraprocessed foods” increases the risk of cognitive impairment and strokes:

[I]f you . . . eat some ultra-processed foods, is that bad for your brain health? A new study appears to deliver resounding yes: eating ultra-processed foods is linked to a greater risk of cognitive impairment and strokes.

Both of these pieces give examples of things that are said to fall in the “ultraprocessed” category — things like Twinkies and non-diet cola — but no precise or comprehensive definition. Surely nobody has a diet consisting of 73% Twinkies and non-diet cola, or of anything comparable. They must be sweeping lots of other things into the definition. But what? How are we supposed to avoid these things without a comprehensive definition?

At this point, before I might find myself prematurely in the grave, I decided it was time for some of my own research. For my first subject of inquiry I picked potato chips. “Ultraprocessed” or not? Remarkably, I find some debate in the literature about whether potato chips are “ultraprocessed” versus merely “processed.” But plenty of articles call them “ultraprocessed,” for example this piece from Canada’s Global News, October 12, 2023 (“From pop to potato chips, report finds ultra-processed food can be addictive. . . . Ultra-processed foods like sugary drinks, potato chips and ready meals can cause withdrawal symptoms similar to people trying to quit smoking. . . .”).

There was a reason I looked up potato chips first. On a bag of potato chips, the ingredients are listed as: potatoes, oil, salt. Those are the exact same ingredients as in the potato dish in my super-healthy meal last night. Could I really have been eating “ultraprocessed food”? I’m now starting to understand how 73% of an American diet can be “ultraprocessed.”

Let me try three more common items that have been promoted to me for decades as the quintessential super-healthy foods: whole grain breakfast cereal, Greek yogurt, and whole wheat bread. I find all three of those considered together in this July 6, 2022 piece from a source called Very Well Health. Surprise:

Whole grain breakfast cereal, Greek yogurt, and 100% whole wheat bread have more in common than being part of a “balanced breakfast”—they can all be classified as “ultra-processed” foods. . . . Some estimates have found that up to 73% of the American food supply is ultra-processed foods. However, experts don’t agree on what to do about ultra-processed foods—or even how to classify them.

So, if whole grain breakfast cereal, Greek yogurt, and whole wheat bread are “ultraprocessed foods,” are they part of the cause of “higher risk of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, angina, elevated blood pressure and biological age” that Nature attributes to “ultraprocessed foods”? Are they part of the cause of “greater risk of cognitive impairment and strokes” that Harvard Medical School attributes to “ultraprocessed foods.” If they are not, then how do we tell which of the “ultraprocessed foods” are the ones that must be avoided and which not?

The Very Well Health piece, in contrast to the pieces from far more “prestigious” sources like Nature and Harvard Medical School, is actually relatively informative on this subject. The piece provides some history, which I will spare you, of how the “ultraprocessed foods” characterization got started and developed. A fair summary is that it is a part of the overall UN effort to smear the West and the productive countries and companies of the world.

I’m certainly not recommending a diet consisting of nothing but Twinkies and non-diet cola. However, I’ve done plenty of research to conclude that the category of “ultraprocessed foods” is completely meaningless as a guide to trying to figure out how to eat a reasonably healthy diet. The pseudo-category of “ultraprocessed foods” includes plenty of things that are very healthy, plenty of things that are fine in moderation, and plenty of things to (mostly) avoid — and no assistance in distinguishing which ones are which. Institutions like Nature and Harvard Medical School that purport to reach epidemiological conclusions based on this pseudo-category only demonstrate their own incompetence.

As to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. — if there is one Trump cabinet pick whom I would be happy to see not confirmed, he would be it.