Ultra-Processed You: The Perils and Pitfalls of Ultra-Easy
- Bettina Herbert
- 4 hours ago
- 5 min read
Back to the Future
Before the hazards of smoking were debated, documented, litigated and unambiguously taken as gospel, we had an inkling, a suspicion, a pretty darn good idea that it was bad for our health. Then, as we pursued that idea with good science, the parties that had an interest in selling cigarettes fought like a trophy bass to get off the hook. Looking back on that fight, the notion that cigarettes are anything but harmful might seem ridiculous, but tobacco companies did argue that their products actually had health benefits!
Well, we are living that moment again. This time it is ultra-processed food ("UPF"). And we are at the early stages of moving from denial to the knock-down-drag-out fight. At this juncture, the question you must give careful consideration to is, do I want to wait for this to be researched fully and litigated fully before acting on my own behalf and on the behalf of everyone I am responsible for?
Let’s explore this so that you can make an informed decision.
The evidence is mounting dramatically. Studies have been designed to investigate the effects of a diet dominated by ultra-processed food. Some are underway, some have been completed. What they are finding is some 32 chronic conditions are linked to the over-consumption of UPF.
Let’s start with some definitions. After all, good science requires a systematic approach that relies on standard tools of measurement, well-defined goals, and ways to measure and evaluate what goes into the study and what the results are.
The standard for defining what a UPF is comes from a researcher, Carlos Augusto Montero, in Brazil. His work resulted in the NOVA classification. NOVA classifies food into four groups:
Unprocessed or minimally processed foods: Edible parts of plants and animals
Processed culinary ingredients: Foods from group 1 that have been ground, pressed, milled, dried…
Processed foods: Foods from group 2 that have been seasoned, cooked, fermented…
Ultra-processed foods: Industrial formulations that incorporate some items from groups 1, 2, or 3 and possibly other ingredients with the sole purpose of inducing a response in the consumer to consume more, and consume more quickly, of the product than they might consume without that formulation.
The first three meet the standard of food, nourishing the organism - us, as human beings. The fourth has a different purpose that has nothing to do with nourishing us, but instead, increasing corporate profits. It has been observed that Group 4 products often contain complex non-food ingredient lists and high levels of sugar, fat and/or salt. They are also packaged in ways that reinforce a brand message with positive images.
This is where the lid comes off and much more than beans spills out.
That pretty label (possibly even including pretty words like NATURAL, NON-GMO, GLUTEN FREE) and the contents within are the product of careful research on test subjects’ responses to the packaging and the product. Some manufacturers have even employed functional MRI scans of subjects’ brains to see what regions “light up" most when they are eating the test formulations. That goes far beyond the idea of human guinea pigs. It is an on-ramp to knowingly creating addictive behavior.
In other words, each UPF formulation aims to create an almost addictive brand loyalty by inducing us to want it more and want more of it. This is an industrial battlefield where UPF is the weapon of choice. This war waged by competing food companies is not victimless. Public health is declining. Younger people are succumbing to chronic disease, including colon cancer, at higher rates. And it has been observed that this trend seems to be spreading like a contagion in the places where UPF spreads.
Spend Time with the Evidence
So, is there a smoking gun? There is good reason to think so. There is certainly enough evidence to consider limiting your exposure to UPF. I hope this has piqued your curiosity. I’d encourage you to watch this interview where Dr. Mark Hyman and Dr. Chris van Tulleken discuss the current state of research into the effects of UPF on our health.
Dr. Mark Hyman is a standard bearer of functional medicine and a 15-time NY Times best-selling author. He is a practicing family physician and an internationally recognized leader, speaker, educator, and advocate of a healthy lifestyle and using nutrition to heal.
Dr. Chris van Tulleken (MD, PhD) does clinical work with patients who have complex infections at The Hospital for Tropical Disease in London, part of University College London Hospital. His academic work is food systems and nutrition. He is author of “Ultra Processed People.”
To investigate this subject further, I'm offering these links. They are dense technical documents meant for the medical community, but if you read the Conclusion or last 2 sentences of the Abstract you will find they are are more likely to be plain English, not 'medicalese':
This is a summation of 43 different studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated that consumption of UPF was associated with increased risk of overweight, obesity , abdominal obesity, all-cause mortality, metabolic syndrome, and depression in adults as well as wheezing in adolescents. In addition, consumption of UPF was associated with cardiometabolic diseases, frailty, irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, and cancer (breast and overall) in adults while also being associated with metabolic syndrome in adolescents and high cholesterol in children.
Here is a review and analysis of 11 published reports showing a consistent significant association between intake of UPF and the risk of overall and several cancers, including colorectal, breast, and pancreatic cancer.
In analyzed food groups, higher UPF consumption was positively associated with obesity and associated with the development of all NCD (Non-Communicable Diseases), mainly hypertension, diabetes and high cholesterol.
Greater exposure to ultra-processed food was associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, especially cardiometabolic, common mental disorder, and mortality outcomes.
The totality of the evidence supports the thesis that displacement of long-established dietary patterns by ultra-processed foods is a key driver of the escalating global burden of multiple diet-related chronic diseases.
Conclusion
We are at a critical crossroads where we know a lot - but not everything - about a risk that the processed food industry has tried to cover up. Someday in the future people may look back on our nationwide assessment of UPF risk as a watershed moment, just as we look back on cigarette smoking risk today. The evidence is being exposed to the point where it is wise to act now rather than later. Navigating food choices can be very challenging (especially against the programmed campaign to make us addicted), but the right changes can profoundly improve our health. I urge you, not the processed food industry, to become the captain of the trillions of cells that make up our bodies.