We all like a clear villain. And increasingly self proclaimed health influencers are pointing the proverbial finger.  In nutrition debates, ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have become the perfect target: easy to blame, easy to vilify, easy to rally against. Even Joe Wicks recently joined the conversation with his 'killer' bar. But what if we’ve been pointing our fingers in the wrong direction?

That’s not to say UPFs are harmless. But the discourse around them has become so polarized that it’s crowding out harder questions we ought to be asking.

The promise (and peril) of the UPF narrative

Over the past decade, “ultra-processed food” has become shorthand for “bad diet.” Headlines link UPFs to obesity, metabolic disease, mental health, even cancer. Yet skeptics rightly point out: the definition of “ultra-processed” is slippery, the mechanisms murky, and the evidence largely observational. 

The blog at OFPlus pitches a provocative counterpoint: the obsession with UPFs may distract from more meaningful interventions. That there’s not enough clarity about what even counts as a UPF to make sweeping policy moves. And that consumer concern has outpaced scientific consensus.

I’m sympathetic to that caution. But I also think it’s worth going further: the UPF fixation can distort how we think about diets, food systems, and equity.

Simon Wright, Founder of OF+ Consulting told me:

“Books such as Ultra-Processed People have made unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims about the link between consuming UPFs and human ill-health. Social media has only intensified this frenzy, often confusing UPFs with foods high in fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS). As a result, the food manufacturing and retail sectors have come under intense scrutiny regarding how foods are formulated and promoted.

Having spent the last 40 years discussing artificial additives, I welcome the greater attention the UPF debate has brought. One positive outcome could be ingredient lists that are shorter and feature fewer odd-sounding additives. However, much of the discussion has taken on a rather hysterical tone, treating all forms of food processing as equally problematic. This is far too simplistic, and ultimately unsustainable. What’s really needed is more nuance, especially in understanding how the degree of processing affects nutrition."

‍

Slices of brown wholemeal bread
Wholemeal bread can be classed as ultra-processed, despite providing health benefits. Photo - Canva

When demonization does more harm than good

1. Overbroad categories drown nuance.
Under the dominant NOVA classification, many foods with vastly different nutritional profiles get lumped together. Whole grain, low-sugar breakfast cereals and industrial snack cakes might both be called “ultra-processed” even though their health impacts are not the same.

Such overgeneralization discourages reformulation. If all UPFs are suspect, then food companies will hesitate to improve salt, sugar, fiber content, or ingredient quality, even when those tweaks could benefit public health.

2. It skews attention away from systemic forces.
Focusing on UPFs shifts blame onto “bad products” rather than the systems that produce them. What about food deserts, income inequality, labor conditions, agricultural subsidies, marketing to children, and industrial consolidation? These structural issues remain under-addressed when the narrative is “avoid the processed stuff.”

3. It risks stigmatizing individuals.
People don’t eat “ultra-processed diets” by choice alone. For many, UPFs are the affordable, shelf-stable, accessible option. A rigid moral frame around “good vs bad foods” may guilt people or exacerbate shame, especially among lower-income communities.

A batch of different tinned and packaged food
Many people rely on ultra-processed foods as an essential part of their diet. Photo - Canva

4. Weak evidence margins get overstated.
Yes, epidemiological studies often find associations between UPF consumption and poor health outcomes. But correlation is not causation. When we don’t fully control for confounders (overall diet quality, lifestyle, socioeconomic status), we risk overinterpreting what the data show. 

Even in controlled trials, isolating the effect of “processing” is tricky: changes in texture, additives, food matrix, satiety, and palatability are all entangled. We’re still parsing which features of UPFs matter most.

Also, there are considerable overlaps between UPF and HFSS foods, and these overlaps may also mask the link between health and disease outcomes and UPF.

"Overbroad categories drown nuance. Under the dominant NOVA classification, many foods with vastly different nutritional profiles get lumped together. Whole-grain low sugar breakfast cereals and industrial snack cakes might both be called “ultra-processed” even though their health impacts are not the same." - Puk Maia Holm-Søndergaard, Chief Consultant - Human Nutrition and Health Nutrition, Consumer & Analytics, Danish Agriculture & Food Council F.m.b.A

Packets of sweets on a shelf
Foods that are high in fats, salts, and sugar may be classed in the same category as healthier foods. Photo - Canva

What a more balanced framing might look like

I propose a few shifts:

  • From demonization to gradation. Let’s stop treating UPFs as a monolithic enemy. Some are worse than others; some may even play useful roles (e.g. shelf-stable fortified staples).

  • From product focus to dietary patterns. The total diet, variety, fiber, plant-based foods, cooking, cultural foods, ultimately matters more than whether one snack is labeled “ultra-processed.”

  • From individual blame to system reform. Push for policies on marketing, subsidies, labeling, food access, reformulation incentives, and corporate responsibility.

  • From certainty to humility. Science evolves. Where evidence is weak or contested, policy should be cautious, transparent, and subject to revision.

A modest conclusion (with an opinion)

I don’t think we should abandon the UPF lens entirely. It has stirred real public interest, challenged complacency, and brought new questions into the nutrition conversation. But as an anchor, it’s unstable. As a moral foil, it’s too blunt. As a policy target, it’s too fuzzy.

If we keep chasing the idea that “all ultra-processed food is the problem,” we run the risk of missing the forest for the trees. We need food systems that support creativity, fairness, pleasure, and health, and that means loosening the grip on perfect villains and sharpening our focus on what actually moves the needle.