In recent years, the global debate on food and nutrition has shifted from a scientific discussion to an ideological battleground. Processed and ultra-processed foods have become the primary targets, portrayed as the main culprits behind the obesity epidemic and the rise of chronic diseases. Yet behind this narrative lies a far more complex reality. Science is increasingly being replaced by slogans, correlations are presented as definitive proof, and public discourse appears more focused on creating villains than understanding problems. The risk is that public health becomes subordinate to political, economic, and cultural interests that have little to do with citizens’ well-being
By Robert Crowe
[caption id="attachment_91540" align="alignleft" width="148"] Prof. Wilde[/caption]
The great misconception surrounding so-called “ultra-processed foods” (UPFs) is a striking example of how contemporary nutrition debates have drifted away from scientific rigor. Consider what Professor Pete Wilde of the Quadram Institute Bioscience - a leading UK interdisciplinary research center dedicated to understanding the relationship between food, the gut microbiome, and human health, with the aim of preventing diet-related diseases and promoting healthy aging - recently wrote in The Guardian.
“The definition of ultra-processed foods (UPFs),”, Wilde argues, “is generic and not based on the latest scientific evidence. As a result, this classification ends up including foods that have been specifically designed to have a positive impact on health. We cannot say that all UPFs are unhealthy, just as we cannot say that all unprocessed foods are healthy. What we need is an objective, science-based assessment of the impact of foods on health, regardless of their degree of industrial processing, moving beyond the inaccurate assumption that all processed foods are necessarily harmful.”
Despite such unequivocal statements from respected scientists like Professor Wilde, few concepts have spread through the international media as rapidly as UPFs. Newspapers, television programs, international organizations, and even governments have gradually transformed the term into a kind of nutritional scarlet letter. In many cases, it has become synonymous with unhealthy, dangerous food and is blamed for a large share of modern diseases.
Yet there is one fundamental problem: no one seems to agree on what ultra-processed foods actually are.
The NOVA classification system, now widely used to identify these products, is based not primarily on nutritional content but on the degree and type of industrial processing. Hence, foods with very different nutritional profiles often end up in the same category. Sugary soft drinks and vitamin-fortified cereals, high-calorie snacks and foods specifically developed to combat malnutrition may all be classified in exactly the same way.
This simplification may be effective from a communication standpoint, but it risks being deeply misleading from a scientific perspective. The history of nutrition is filled with designated villains. In the 1970s, fat was the enemy. Then came cholesterol. Later it was salt, carbohydrates, sugar, red meat, and now ultra-processed foods. Every era seems to require a clearly identifiable culprit.
The reason is simple. Complexity does not generate consensus. Complexity does not create headlines. Complexity does not mobilize political campaigns. Saying that obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease result from a combination of genetic, behavioral, social, economic, and environmental factors is scientifically accurate, but it is not particularly attractive to the media. It is far easier to identify a single enemy and build a compelling narrative around it.
That is precisely what is happening today. The scientific literature linking ultra-processed foods to health problems is undoubtedly extensive. However, it contains a limitation that is often omitted from public discussion: most of the evidence comes from observational studies. In other words, these studies identify statistical associations but do not establish definitive cause-and-effect relationships.
People who consume larger amounts of ultra-processed foods often exhibit other risk factors as well: sedentary lifestyles, lower levels of physical activity, lower incomes, reduced access to healthcare, or generally poorer dietary patterns. Separating these variables and confidently attributing responsibility to a single factor is far more difficult than many headlines suggest.
This does not mean that all industrially produced foods are healthy or that poor-quality products do not exist. It simply means that science requires robust evidence, not slogans. The real paradox is that food technology, often portrayed today as a threat, has been one of the greatest allies of public health in modern history.
Pasteurization has saved millions of lives. Industrial preservation methods have reduced foodborne infections. Fortification with iodine, iron, and vitamins has helped eliminate nutritional deficiencies that devastated entire populations for centuries. Food safety standards have dramatically reduced diseases that were once considered a normal part of life.
None of these achievements would have been possible without research, innovation, and industry.
Yet a growing part of the international debate views that world with suspicion. The reason is not purely scientific; it is also cultural and political. In recent years, a romantic vision of food has gained traction, one that associates virtue with what is natural, local, artisanal, and traditional, while linking vice to what is industrial, global, and innovative.
It is an appealing narrative, but often one that is detached from reality. Applied on a global scale, a food system based exclusively on local and artisanal production would make it far more difficult to ensure food security, affordability, and adequate nutrient availability for billions of people. Such narratives may be attractive, but they too often become misleading.
[caption id="attachment_91542" align="alignleft" width="225"] Prof. Jones[/caption]
As Professor Julie Jones of St. Catherine University in Minnesota pointed out in New Scientist: “This means that blanket recommendations to avoid ultra-processed foods could lead to nutrient deficiencies.” The issue, therefore, is not choosing between nature and technology. The issue is recognizing that both can contribute to human well-being. The real question is why parts of the international institutional and media landscape seem determined to promote such a simplified representation of reality. The reasons are likely multiple.
There are political interests that gain support by framing the debate as a struggle between ordinary people and industry. There are economic interests that benefit from the expansion of specific market segments, from organic products to so-called “clean label” foods. There are organizations that build visibility by continuously identifying new public health emergencies.
In this context, the line between protecting public health and advancing particular interests risks becoming increasingly blurred. The result is a growing distrust of applied science, innovation, and the productive system that has contributed enormously to improving quality of life over recent decades. Of course, this does not mean that the food industry is beyond criticism. Like any major economic sector, it should be subject to strict oversight, transparency, and clear rules.
But regulation is one thing. Demonization is another. When public debate replaces analysis with ideology, the risk is that poor decisions will be made. And when poor decisions concern food, the consequences can affect billions of people.
Public health should be guided by evidence, not media campaigns. It should evaluate outcomes, not perceptions. It should reward what works, not what is most appealing from a communications perspective. History teaches a fundamental lesson: human progress was not built by demonizing technology, but by learning how to use it better. That principle applies to artificial intelligence. And it applies to food as well.
(Associated Medias) - All rights are reserved(Associated Medias) - All rights reserved