Compared to unprocessed food, processed food has a higher content of fat, sugar, salt, and calories. Some call it unnatural and poisonous, while others just wave it off.

Bashing processed food is popular. One well-known Croatian nutritionist claims that “processed food is nothing more than a fancy name for junk food” (1). Elsewhere, she calls it “dead food” and adds that it should not even be considered food at all (2).

Scientists are not immune to strong words either. Carlos Monteiro, the author of NOVA, the most popular classification of food by degree of processing, writes that ultra-processed food is not “real food” (3).

Michael Pollan is one of the most famous journalists writing about food topics. Some of his ideas about food are more than reasonable: “Eat a variety. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Others are a bit less logical and quite limiting: “Don’t eat anything your grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food.” In other words, avoid processed food.

Compared to unprocessed food, processed food has a higher content of fat, sugar, and salt (4).

By consuming processed food, you will probably take in more calories than by consuming unprocessed food (5).

Its consumption is associated in scientific literature with the occurrence of obesity and metabolic syndrome (6,7).

Many claim that the consumption of processed food is precisely what is responsible for the obesity epidemic (8).

Consumption of processed food is also associated with an increased risk of developing symptoms of depression (9).

People with high processed food intake, compared to those with low intake, have a higher risk of death (10).

But correlation does not mean causation. Individuals who often consume highly processed food might have different taste preferences, less nutritional knowledge, be less physically active, less interested in their health, or have less time and money than those who consume processed food less often (11,12).

Processed food and its impact on health occupy enormous space in the media. Without exception, it is portrayed in a negative light, but with few truly solid arguments. Therefore, in the following text, I will attempt to present a realistic picture of the risks and benefits of processed food.

Greetings to the reader who has just stopped following because they noticed the words benefit and processed in the same sentence. Let’s wish them luck in their informational bubble, and let us continue with the story.

Is it something to eat?

The human species is neither the strongest nor the fastest predator. But it is the smartest. Because of this, throughout history, we have constantly sought technologies to increase the availability, digestibility, safety, and shelf-life of food (13).

Cooking is one such technology. It may even have separated us from the rest of the animal world, making us the most dominant species on the planet. This makes it one of the most human of actions. And cooking is processing. It is therefore not an exaggeration to say that human food is processed food (14).

Any action carried out with the aim of modifying a food item found in nature constitutes processing. There are many such actions, and they alter the composition of the original food to varying degrees. These changes can reduce the content of certain nutrients. Equally, they can increase it. They can decrease or increase nutrient bioavailability, and they can influence the digestibility of the food.

Processed isn’t natural?

Food processing is considered a deviation from the natural. And if something isn’t natural, it must be bad for us.

Or…?

The logical fallacy of equating natural (unprocessed) with healthy or good is well documented (15).

There is no natural and unnatural food. There are no natural and unnatural actions. Everything that has its cause in nature (read: everything) is natural, including food produced in a laboratory. The fact that something is made or processed by humans does not mean it is unnatural, i.e., artificial. Humans, like ants, are part of nature, and regardless of the materials they have, even if they have created them themselves, everything they build must necessarily be natural.

But if you do not wish to accept this philosophy and insist on dividing the natural and the artificial, ask yourself whether natural is always good and artificial is always bad. If there is even a single example where this is not the case, the whole logic falls apart.

While we’re at it, is anyone up for a bowl of freshly picked, completely natural poisonous mushrooms?

Processing as a measure of food quality

First, healthy (quality) food was the one low in fat, then the one without sugar, then low-carb, then gluten-free… Today it is unprocessed or minimally processed food. This approach is at odds with the consensus that the nutritional content of food is the measure of its quality.

The most commonly used classification of food by processing is NOVA. This classification divides food into:

1. Unprocessed or minimally processed
2. Processed culinary ingredients
3. Processed food
4. Ultra-processed food

The authors of the NOVA classification claim that the impact of food processing on health is underestimated (16). They say that the problem is not the food, nor the nutrients, but the processing (8). They send the message that the human body does not respond to nutrients but to the degree of processing.

Ultra-Processed Food

Where would you place the processing boundary in the following fish example?

Live fish → Dead fish → Cleaned fish → Filleted fish → Cooked fish → Fish oil → Omega-3 fatty acids

The boundary between processed and unprocessed food is arbitrary. The processing of a food item is a continuum. The boundary between processed and ultra-processed food is equally arbitrary.

According to Monteiro’s definition, ultra-processed food is produced from ingredients extracted or refined from whole foods, containing five or more ingredients. These ingredients are mostly not used in home cooking, and many are additives intended to imitate the sensory qualities of unprocessed foods or hide undesirable characteristics of the final product (17).

The problem with this division is that highly processed food still represents a very broad category of products and does not distinguish between a packaged donut and whole-grain bread.

Just as processed food in itself is not bad, neither is ultra-processed food. The continuum of processing does not tell us enough about the nutritional value of a product. Dividing food into processed and unprocessed, even after separating the ultra-processed category, remains inadequate.

Dietary Dogmatism

Processed food is the target of one of today’s most popular diets. The Paleo diet, alongside other arbitrary bans, prohibits the consumption of processed food. Our ancestors did not consume processed food, and they were so healthy and lived a full 30 years. Therefore, logically, neither should we.

Reality check: If processed food had existed, our ancestors would have gladly embraced it. And they would have clubbed you over your head for acting smart and eating Paleo.

Classifying food based on processing is the result of searching for a simple cause for our failure to combat obesity and chronic diseases. We humans have a tendency to look for simple solutions. When it comes to food, we like to find a culprit we can point a finger at. We have done or are doing this with fats, sugars, and carbohydrates. Today, the target of dietary demonization has become processed food. The word processed has become a synonym for unhealthy, without requiring justification.

Processed can be healthy

Processed food simplifies our lives by reducing meal preparation time, freeing up time for activities outside the kitchen.

Processed, frozen vegetables can be richer in nutrients than fresh ones because they are harvested at the optimal moment and immediately frozen, reducing nutrient loss after picking.

Processed, pasteurized milk contains incomparably fewer potentially harmful bacteria than raw milk.

The fact that a stabilizer is added to food does not automatically mean that the food is unhealthy.

The fact that food is made at home does not necessarily mean it is a nutritionally better choice.

There are many ways to process food. Some increase the nutritional value of a product, others decrease it. Some add ingredients, others remove them. In itself, this is neither good nor bad. What makes the process desirable or undesirable is the end result—namely, the nutritional quality of the product.

Food processing enables the dietary variety we enjoy today. And variety is the foundation of adequate nutrient intake.

Nutrients, not processing

Your body does not know the difference between processed and unprocessed food. Your body recognizes, absorbs, metabolizes, and excretes nutrients. The quality of the diet is determined by the nutritional composition of foods, the amount, and the frequency of their consumption, not the degree of processing.

The fact is that minimally processed food is often also the most nutrient-rich. As such, it should be the foundation of everyone’s diet. But not all processed food is nutrient-poor, nor is all unprocessed food nutrient-rich. The degree of processing does not tell us enough about the nutritional value of a product, and even less about the nutritional value of the overall diet.

Healthy, not natural, diet

I am not claiming that all processed food is healthy or desirable.

I am not claiming that we should choose processed food over unprocessed food.

I am not claiming that we should eat more processed foods.

I am claiming that we cannot make good dietary choices based on the division into processed and unprocessed. Processed food can be nutrient-rich, and unprocessed food nutrient-poor. Eating five kilograms of freshly picked homegrown organic natural GMO-free tangerines daily, however unprocessed they may be, is not the best nutritional strategy.

I want to draw attention to the illogic in our thinking about food. I want to point out that we hold beliefs (or they hold us?) that we may not even be aware of. And in this case, that belief sounds something like this: Natural is good, and unnatural is bad.

This is a religious mantra, the dietary version of a fairy tale that divides the world in binary, into white and black, good and evil. Nutrition science rejects such oversimplification. Just as good and bad are not scientific categories, neither are processed and natural. Do not use them as the basis for your dietary decisions.

Processing is irreplaceable. It allows for safe, edible, tasty, and healthy food. Processed food simplifies our lives by reducing meal preparation time, freeing up time for activities outside the kitchen. Nutrition is an important aspect of health. But it is not the only one. The time saved by consuming processed food and invested in other potentially “healthy” activities like exercise, can have an overall positive effect on health. Personally, I think life is too short to be drying my own beans.

Without processed food, we would not enjoy the variety we have today. Our diet would be based on only a few seasonally and locally available foods. Depending on where we live, that choice would be more or less limited, but the likelihood is high that it would significantly hinder achieving a healthy diet.

Processing is a tool. A potential. The result can be, simply put, good or bad. To lump all processed food under one label is unjustified. The term processed is so broad that it means almost nothing. The demonization of processed food is an irresponsible myth, and the superficiality of such classification is misleading and dangerous.

Processed food is not your enemy. Your enemy is an unbalanced caloric intake and insufficient nutrient intake. Processed food can help you achieve that intake, and thereby a healthy diet.

Let unprocessed food be the foundation of your diet. But do not fear processed food. When used correctly, it is a tool that can help you on your path to better health. Know what you eat. Eat smart, not natural.

References

1. Šupe, A. Pretjerana potreba za jelom. Available at: http://istineilaziohrani.blogspot.com/2010/06/pretjerana-potreba-za-jelom.html.
2. Šupe, A. Znate li što je zapravo ‘mrtva hrana’ i koje namirnice baš nikada ne biste trebali jesti? > Slobodna Dalmacija. Available at: https://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/mozaik/zdravlje/clanak/id/432096/znate-li-sto-je-zapravo-mrtva-hrana-i-koje-namirnice-bas-nikada-ne-biste-trebali-jesti. (Accessed: 11th January 2020)
3. Monteiro, C. A. et al. Ultra-processed foods: What they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition 22, 936–941 (2019).
4. Poti, J. M., Mendez, M. A., Ng, S. W. & Popkin, B. M. Is the degree of food processing and convenience linked with the nutritional quality of foods purchased by US households? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 101, 1251–1262 (2015).
5. Hall, K. D. et al. Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake. Cell Metab. 30, 67-77.e3 (2019).
6. Mozaffarian, D., Hao, T., Rimm, E. B., Willett, W. C. & Hu, F. B. Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 2392–2404 (2011).
7. Tavares, L. F., Fonseca, S. C., Garcia Rosa, M. L. & Yokoo, E. M. Relationship between ultra-processed foods and metabolic syndrome in adolescents from a Brazilian Family Doctor Program. Public Health Nutrition 15, 82–87 (2012).
8. 8.Monteiro, C. A. Nutrition and health. The issue is not food, nor nutrients, so much as processing. Public Health Nutrition 12, 729–731 (2009).
9. Adjibade, M. et al. Prospective association between ultra-processed food consumption and incident depressive symptoms in the French NutriNet-Santé cohort. BMC Med. 17, 78 (2019).
10. Rico-Campà, A. et al. Association between consumption of ultra-processed foods and all cause mortality: SUN prospective cohort study. BMJ 365, (2019).
11. Asfaw, A. Does consumption of processed foods explain disparities in the body weight of individuals? The case of Guatemala. Health Econ. 20, 184–195 (2011).
12. De Deus Mendonça, R. et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and the incidence of hypertension in a mediterranean cohort: The seguimiento universidad de navarra project. Am. J. Hypertens. 30, 358–366 (2017).
13. Ludwig, D. S. Technology, diet, and the burden of chronic disease. JAMA – Journal of the American Medical Association 305, 1352–1353 (2011).
14. de St. Maurice, G. Cuisine and Empire: Cooking in World History: By Rachel Laudan. Food, Cult. Soc. 18, 187–189 (2015).
15. Moore, G. E. Principia Ethica. (Barnes and Noble Publishing, Inc, 1903).
16. Monteiro, C. A. et al. NOVA. The star shines bright. World Nutr. 7, 28–40 (2016).
17. Gibney, M. J. Ultra-Processed Foods: Definitions and Policy Issues. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 3, (2019).