Are ultra-processed foods shaping our health more than our diet?

An unbalanced diet is now the leading cause of disease worldwide, even surpassing the harms of tobacco. Yet, millions of people struggle to access healthy food, largely due to the deep transformation of our food system. This system, now globalized, industrialized, and driven by commercial logic, has made products abundant, cheap, and long-lasting, but often at the expense of their nutritional quality.

Food processing is not a new phenomenon. For generations, it has made products edible, safe, tasty, or easier to preserve. However, since the Industrial Revolution, motivations have shifted. Food companies now seek to maximize profits, leading to a system where ultra-processed foods dominate. These products, designed to be attractive, inexpensive, and easy to distribute, primarily serve a financial logic rather than a nutritional need.

The Nova classification system offers an original approach by focusing on the intent behind food processing. Unlike other methods that only assess the degree of physical transformation, Nova examines why a food is processed. For ultra-processed foods, the main goal is profit, often at the expense of health. These products are formulated with industrial ingredients and cosmetic additives, which enhance their appearance, taste, or texture but provide no nutritional benefit. They are also designed to be consumed quickly and in large quantities, which encourages overeating.

Studies show that diets high in ultra-processed foods are often low in essential nutrients and are associated with an increased risk of obesity, cardiometabolic diseases, and premature mortality. However, their impact on health is not limited to their nutritional composition. Their texture, energy density, and sensory appeal play a key role in overconsumption. For example, these foods are often more energy-dense and eaten faster than minimally processed foods, which reduces the feeling of fullness and encourages greater consumption.

However, considering these products as inherently bad would be reductive. Their impact depends on their formulation and consumption context. Some can be reformulated to limit their negative effects, but these changes often remain superficial and driven by marketing strategies rather than a genuine desire for nutritional improvement. Additionally, the additives they contain, often criticized, are not all harmful. Most are approved by health authorities and consumed in safe quantities. Only a few raise concerns, but evidence of their harm remains limited and requires further research.

The real challenge lies in how these products are perceived and regulated. The media and influential figures sometimes amplify fears about ultra-processed foods, focusing on mechanisms with little scientific backing, such as the presence of artificial additives. This can lead to ineffective reformulations, where one industrial ingredient is replaced by another just as questionable, without improving nutritional quality. For example, replacing high-fructose corn syrup with honey does nothing to address the core issue: high energy density and a lack of essential nutrients.

Moreover, systematically avoiding these products without considering general nutritional recommendations can have unintended consequences. Replacing an ultra-processed food with another equally high in salt or saturated fats offers no benefit. The ideal approach would be to combine methods: using the Nova classification to understand the dynamics of the food system while applying traditional dietary advice to guide individual choices.

Current policies often focus on individual responsibility, but these measures have little impact given the scale of the problem. To improve access to healthy food, structural changes are needed. This involves rethinking the economic incentives that push companies to prioritize profit over health. Governments must play a central role by imposing strict regulations, such as banning certain additives or setting limits on sensory properties that encourage overconsumption.

Transparency from food companies is also crucial. By publicly disclosing details about their products, sales, and reformulations, they would enable researchers and policymakers to better understand the links between food characteristics and health. This would also facilitate the design of more effective policies.

Finally, it is essential to prioritize actions based on the strongest scientific evidence. Ultra-processed foods are clearly linked to obesity and cardiometabolic diseases, but their impact on other health issues, such as mental health, remains less clear. Efforts should focus on the most well-documented mechanisms while continuing to explore other possible associations.

The transformation of our food system is a major public health challenge. By better understanding the motivations behind food production, it is possible to act on both supply and demand to make healthy eating more accessible to all.

Information and Sources

Scientific Reference

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-026-00775-z

Title: The Purpose of Food Processing and Ultra-Processed Food: the Potential, Pitfalls and Path Forward for Public Health

Journal: Current Nutrition Reports

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Authors: Samuel J. Dicken