UPF’S: Processing the evidence

Processing the Evidence 

By nature, humans are pattern loving creatures, drawn to simple stories and explanations. For most of our existence, this was a considerable advantage. Finding the simplest way to navigate the world helped us quickly spot danger and efficiently find food. But sometimes, when dealing with complex situations in the modern world, our instinctive desire to seek out simple solutions can be a problem.

 

Take the relationship between diet and health. At the most basic level this relationship is simple. We need to eat enough micro and macro nutrients to maintain body function and growth. If we fail to consume sufficient protein, we’ll get sick. If we don’t eat enough Vitamin C, we’ll get scurvy. Simple.

 

But as the integrity and abundance of our food supply has increased, the relationship between food and health has become a far more complex one. When we have plentiful access to proteins, fats, vitamins and minerals, there are different and more complex factors to consider. Some of us will over consume calories or fats. Some might eat too many highly refined foods. Others might develop a troubled relationship with food, falling into extreme and harmful patterns of eating. The relationship becomes complex, yet being human, we still look for simple patterns.

 

Such patterns are always a vast oversimplification. In the 1970s and 80s, over consumption of fats and saturated fats was widely blamed for a variety of dietary ills, leading to many people being drawn towards diets and ‘health’ products high in refined carbohydrates or sugar. In the 1990s and 2000s, sugar and carbohydrates became the great dietary demons, driving many people towards low carb diets high in saturated fats and processed meats. The reality of official dietary advice across this time was far more nuanced, encouraging balance, moderation and a focus on wholefoods. But unfortunately, nuance is the enemy of marketing, and the public was drawn to pedlars of simple but extreme narratives. Fad diets, gimmicky products and seductively simple explanations won the day.

 

Today, advise has shifted again. Rather than sugar, carbs, animal fats or cholesterol, the new dietary scourge is processing. The concept of Ultra Processed Food has become the main story in food and health, offering a simple solution to our dietary ills. Ultra Processed Foods are bad, causing a huge variety of health issues. Less processed foods are good, to be eaten in abundance. We finally have a simple way to navigate the complex waters of dietary health.

 

Or do we? There have been countless books, articles, documentaries and research papers proposing that this simple solution is actually the answer we have all been looking for. But in reality, is Ultra Processing just another dietary fad, framing a complex situation in overly simple terms?

 

No one doubts that certain foods within the Ultra Processed category are not things we should be basing our diets around. Sugar sweetened drinks, extruded snacks, chocolate, biscuits and confectionary. All have a place, but equally, such options tend to be calorie dense and devoid of micronutrients, fibre, high quality protein and beneficial fats. The high level of processing can make it easy to eat a lot of calories quickly, potentially leading to over consumption. Heavily refined ingredients often lack fibre and micronutrients, and high intake will displace other more beneficial foods in our diets. And a lack of natural food microstructure means that processed food tends to be digested very quickly, failing to move beyond the stomach and so not providing sufficient food for our microbiome.

 

But then there is the nuance. Because it is not just cakes, crisps and biscuits that fall under the ultra-processed classification. Most manufactured bread sits in this category, including many wholegrain or seeded breads full of fibre, intact plant cells and valuable nutrition. Many soups, meals and sauces are considered ultra processed, even those that offer healthy, nutrient packed, cost-effective meal solutions for time poor consumers. Simple rules such as ‘all ultra processed foods are bad’ can demonise perfectly sensible choices, leaving consumers confused and anxious about how they eat.

 

Equally worrying, the Ultra Processed category leaves many supposedly less processed foods in the clear, despite them being items we should be careful about over-consuming. In particular, meat and dairy products seem to get an undeserved free pass. Although lean meat is generally accepted as a healthy way to consume protein, fatty cuts of pork and beef should only ever be eaten in moderation, and total meat consumption should be limited. Processed meats such as bacon and ham carry considerable health risks when over consumed, yet do not sit in the Ultra Processed category, perhaps given consumers a green light to eating excess. And items such as cheese, butter and cream are also not considered Ultra Processed, despite the lengthy levels of processing they undergo and the high levels of saturated fats they contain. In many cases, the Ultra Processed category seems arbitrary and not a good indicator of healthfulness.

 

When a diet category looks at a delicious beef burger dripping with fat and covered in melted cheese and decides that the only really unhealthy part is the bun, then it almost certainly lacks both nuance and accuracy. It might be said that the Ultra Processed category gives people a general rule to help them make better decisions, but in reality, the same has been said for all manner of dietary fads over the years. Despite good intentions, such fads always end up having unintended harms, especially as the system gets gamed by companies and individuals looking to cash in. People often get turned away from sensible food choices and move towards less healthy ones, all because we are irresistibly drawn to simple solutions.

 

What’s the alternative? Unfortunately, it is probably trying to encourage people to take a more nuanced approach. To promote consumption of fibre-rich wholefoods, but not in an obsessive way. To eat a variety of different things, but not to worry about hitting some sort of magical daily plant-points target. To shy away from simple rules when trying to navigate the complex world of diet and health. That’s the dream, but unfortunately us humans are just not built that way.


About the Author

Anthony Warner, better known as The Angry Chef, is an award-winning science writer, broadcaster, and food communicator with a passion for separating nutrition fact from fiction. Trained as a developmental biologist, Anthony has become one of the UK's most respected voices on evidence-based nutrition, making complex food science accessible through his books, media appearances, and public speaking. His work focuses on helping consumers understand the science behind food, health, and nutrition without the myths, misinformation, or marketing hype.


The Breadology Evidence Base

A fully-cited, searchable research library covering bread, fibre, and gut health—built for dietitians, clinicians, food scientists, and industry professionals who need more than a summary.

Every answer here traces back to a real, evidence-tiered source: peer-reviewed trials, systematic reviews, and primary regulatory documents—never an uncited claim. Ask a question in plain language, or browse by topic.