Processing food isn’t new: we’ve been doing it for thousands of years (think cheesemaking, fermenting, smoking and pickling). But the surge in foods that are classed as ‘ultra-processed’ really accelerated after the Second World War, when innovations like industrial preservation and formulation meant it was possible to produce convenient, long-shelf-life products at scale. At the same time, home lives were changing, with more dual income households and less time for cooking from scratch, meaning there was greater demand for quick, easy meal options.
The real boom happened in the 1970s and 1980s, when new technologies and ingredients, like high fructose corn syrup and the microwave, became ubiquitous. This was also when food scientists mastered the “bliss point”: the combination of salt, sugar and fat that makes food easy to eat and overrides our natural hunger signals.
Foods classed as UPFs are a long-standing part of modern life, making up around 60% of many people’s diets. But their impact on our health is not always explained clearly, so it’s no surprise the debate has become so controversial.
Food choices are deeply personal: they’re shaped by habit, budget, culture, and available time. Many people lean on ‘UPFs’ because they’re convenient, affordable and accessible, and some options can absolutely have a place in a balanced diet. Importantly, not all UPFs are bad for us. Just because a food is classed as a ‘UPF’ doesn’t mean its bad for your health. The problem is that some are processed in such a way that the structure of the food is destroyed and the texture is soft which makes it very easy to overeat them.
The message to “avoid all UPFs” has stuck because it’s simple, but the truth is more nuanced. Some UPFs can be helpful, and context really matters. The challenge for most people is knowing which products are the ones to limit and which are sensible choices when life is busy.
Professor Sarah Berry is professor of nutritional sciences at King’s College London
No comments yet