Ultra-Processed People

Ultra-Processed People Plot Summary

Introduction

When you walk through a modern supermarket, you're surrounded by thousands of colorful packages promising convenience, flavor, and nutrition. That box of breakfast cereal fortified with vitamins, the protein bar claiming to fuel your workout, the ready-made meal boasting "all-natural ingredients" - these products have become staples in many households. Yet beneath their appealing packaging lies a concerning reality: these are ultra-processed foods (UPFs), industrial formulations that bear little resemblance to traditional cooking ingredients. While they offer undeniable convenience in our busy lives, mounting scientific evidence suggests they may be fundamentally changing our relationship with food and undermining our health in ways we're only beginning to understand. The story of ultra-processed food is not simply about calories or nutrients - it's about how industrial manufacturing techniques have transformed what we eat at a molecular level. These products typically contain ingredients you wouldn't find in a home kitchen: modified starches, hydrogenated oils, protein isolates, and numerous additives for flavor, texture, and shelf-life. Throughout this exploration, we'll discover how these foods can override our body's natural hunger regulation, potentially create addiction-like eating patterns, and contribute to chronic diseases beyond just obesity. Most importantly, we'll examine why the structure of food matters as much as its nutrient content, and how we might reclaim healthier eating patterns in a world dominated by ultra-processing.

Chapter 1: The NOVA Classification: Defining Ultra-Processed Foods

When scientists needed a way to categorize the modern food supply, traditional classifications based solely on nutrients proved inadequate. In 2010, Brazilian researcher Carlos Monteiro and his team proposed the NOVA classification system, which revolutionized how we think about food processing. Unlike previous systems that focused primarily on what foods contain, NOVA examines how foods are made and for what purpose. This distinction has proven crucial for understanding the health impacts of our modern diet. NOVA divides foods into four distinct groups based on processing level. Group 1 consists of unprocessed or minimally processed foods - think fresh fruits, vegetables, eggs, milk, and meat. These foods might be cleaned, refrigerated, or undergo simple processing like grinding, but their fundamental nature remains unchanged. Group 2 includes processed culinary ingredients extracted from Group 1 foods, such as oils, butter, and sugar - substances used in cooking rather than eaten alone. Group 3 encompasses traditionally processed foods like cheese, canned vegetables, or freshly made bread - essentially combinations of Groups 1 and 2 that have been processed mainly for preservation or flavor enhancement. Group 4 - ultra-processed foods - represents something fundamentally different. These are not simply processed versions of whole foods but industrial formulations made predominantly from substances extracted from foods, with little or no whole food remaining. They typically contain ingredients never found in home kitchens: modified starches, hydrogenated oils, protein isolates, and numerous additives for color, flavor, and texture. Examples include mass-produced breads, breakfast cereals, energy bars, sweetened yogurts, reconstituted meat products, and most packaged snacks. What distinguishes these products is that they're designed primarily for profitability, convenience, and hyperpalatability rather than nutritional value. The significance of this classification became apparent when researchers began examining consumption patterns. Studies across multiple countries revealed striking correlations between UPF consumption and health outcomes. As the percentage of calories from ultra-processed foods increased in national diets, so did rates of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers. These associations remained strong even after controlling for traditional nutritional factors like calories, sugar, and fat content, suggesting something about ultra-processing itself - beyond just nutrient composition - affects health. Critics initially dismissed NOVA as arbitrary, questioning why the number of ingredients or processing steps should matter if nutritional content remained similar. However, the system's predictive power has silenced many skeptics. Even researchers who initially doubted the concept, like American scientist Kevin Hall, have been convinced after conducting their own experiments showing that people consume more calories and gain weight when eating ultra-processed diets compared to nutritionally matched unprocessed diets. The distinction matters because it helps explain why decades of nutrition advice focused solely on reducing fat, sugar, or salt hasn't solved our health crisis.

Chapter 2: How UPF Disrupts Our Body's Natural Regulation

Our bodies possess a remarkable system for regulating food intake - a complex network of hormones, neural circuits, and feedback mechanisms refined over millions of years of evolution. This system is designed to maintain energy balance, ensuring we consume enough calories to fuel our bodies without storing excessive fat. When functioning properly, it operates largely below conscious awareness, guiding our eating behavior through hunger and satiety signals that tell us when to start and stop eating. Ultra-processed foods, however, appear to bypass or disrupt these regulatory systems in multiple ways. In a groundbreaking study, researcher Kevin Hall placed volunteers on two diets matched for calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients. The only difference was that one diet consisted of ultra-processed foods while the other contained minimally processed foods. Participants could eat as much as they wanted from either diet. The results were striking: on the ultra-processed diet, people consumed about 500 more calories per day and gained weight, while on the minimally processed diet, they ate less and lost weight. What explains this difference? One key factor is the physical structure of UPF. Most ultra-processed foods are designed to be soft and easy to chew, requiring minimal oral processing. This matters because chewing time influences satiety - the longer we spend eating something, the more satisfied we feel. Traditional foods like tough meats, fibrous vegetables, and chewy whole grains require significant oral processing time. In contrast, modern UPFs can be consumed at a much faster rate - studies show people eat UPF approximately 50% faster than whole foods. This rapid consumption outpaces the body's satiety signals, which take 15-20 minutes to register, leading to overconsumption before we feel full. The energy density of UPF also plays a crucial role in disrupting satiety mechanisms. Many ultra-processed foods contain minimal water and fiber while being high in fat and refined carbohydrates, creating a concentrated source of calories in a small volume. Our stomachs have stretch receptors that signal fullness based partly on physical volume, so these energy-dense foods provide fewer fullness cues per calorie. Additionally, many UPFs are designed to minimize sensory-specific satiety - the phenomenon where we get tired of one flavor but can continue eating if new flavors are introduced. By incorporating multiple flavor notes that dissipate quickly, these products encourage continued consumption. Perhaps most concerning is evidence that certain additives common in UPF may directly interfere with metabolic processes. Emulsifiers like carboxymethylcellulose and polysorbate 80, used to create smooth textures in everything from ice cream to salad dressing, have been shown to alter gut bacteria composition and damage the protective mucus layer in the intestines in animal studies. These changes appear to promote inflammation and disrupt signaling pathways involved in hunger regulation. Similarly, artificial sweeteners may confuse the body's ability to properly regulate blood sugar by creating a mismatch between sweet taste and caloric content. This disruption explains why simply counting calories or exercising more often fails as a weight management strategy when ultra-processed foods dominate the diet. When the body's natural regulatory system is compromised, conscious control becomes extraordinarily difficult - like trying to manually regulate your breathing or heart rate for extended periods. Understanding these mechanisms shifts the conversation from individual willpower to how food environments and products are designed to override our biological systems.

Chapter 3: The Addiction Model: Brain Chemistry and Cravings

The concept of food addiction has been controversial in scientific circles, but growing evidence suggests that certain ultra-processed foods can trigger addiction-like neurological and behavioral responses in susceptible individuals. The parallels between drug addiction and problematic eating patterns are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore, offering important insights into why many people struggle to moderate their consumption of UPF despite knowing its health consequences. The brain's reward system evolved to ensure we seek out essential resources like nutritious food. When we eat, particularly foods rich in fat and sugar, dopamine is released in reward centers like the nucleus accumbens, creating feelings of pleasure and reinforcing the behavior. Natural foods trigger moderate responses in this system, but ultra-processed foods can hijack these pathways by delivering unnaturally potent combinations of fat, sugar, salt, and flavor enhancers that stimulate reward circuits more intensely than anything found in nature. Brain imaging studies show that highly palatable UPF activates many of the same neural circuits as addictive drugs, creating powerful motivational drives to continue consuming these foods. More importantly, regular consumption of hyperpalatable UPF can lead to neuroadaptations similar to those seen in substance addiction. Initially, these foods trigger a strong dopamine release, but with repeated exposure, the brain adapts by reducing dopamine receptors - a process called downregulation. This creates a situation where more of the substance is needed to achieve the same reward, a hallmark of addiction known as tolerance. Individuals may find themselves needing to consume increasing amounts of their favorite ultra-processed foods to experience the same pleasure, creating a cycle of escalating consumption. The behavioral patterns associated with UPF consumption often mirror addiction criteria. Many people report continued consumption despite negative consequences, unsuccessful attempts to cut down, and significant time spent obtaining, consuming, or recovering from these foods. They experience intense cravings triggered by environmental cues like food advertisements or simply passing by familiar restaurants. Perhaps most tellingly, some individuals report withdrawal-like symptoms when attempting to reduce UPF consumption, including irritability, fatigue, and intense cravings - suggesting physiological dependence has developed. The food industry appears well aware of these mechanisms. Former food executives have described how products are engineered to reach the "bliss point" - the precise combination of ingredients that maximizes palatability and consumption. Marketing strategies often focus on creating strong associations between brands and emotional states, further strengthening neural pathways related to craving and reward. The ubiquitous availability of these products creates constant environmental cues that trigger dopamine release and motivational drive, making moderation exceptionally difficult for many people. This addiction model helps explain why simple advice to "eat less" often fails. For many people, reducing UPF consumption isn't merely a matter of making better choices - it involves overcoming neurobiological changes that drive powerful urges to consume. Understanding this can reduce stigma around weight and eating behaviors while pointing toward more effective approaches to improving dietary patterns. Rather than viewing problematic eating as simply a failure of willpower, we can recognize it as a predictable response to products specifically designed to override our natural regulatory systems.

Chapter 4: Beyond Weight: Links to Cancer and Chronic Disease

While much attention has focused on ultra-processed food's role in obesity, research increasingly reveals that UPF consumption is associated with numerous health problems independent of weight gain. Even individuals who maintain a normal weight while consuming high levels of UPF face elevated risks across multiple disease categories, suggesting mechanisms beyond simply excess calories are at work. Cancer risk appears significantly influenced by UPF consumption. A large study published in the British Medical Journal followed more than 100,000 people and found that a 10% increase in the proportion of UPF in the diet was associated with a 10% increase in overall cancer risk, particularly breast cancer. Importantly, this association remained even after researchers adjusted for nutritional quality, suggesting something about the processing itself contributes to cancer development. Several mechanisms may explain this link. Some processing methods create potentially carcinogenic compounds like acrylamide (formed when starchy foods are cooked at high temperatures) and heterocyclic amines (in heavily processed meats). Food packaging materials may leach endocrine-disrupting chemicals like bisphenol A and phthalates into food. Additionally, many food additives have shown concerning effects in laboratory studies, including inflammation and DNA damage that could promote cancer development. Cardiovascular disease risk also increases with UPF consumption. Multiple large cohort studies have found that higher UPF intake is associated with increased risk of heart disease and stroke, with one study showing a 62% higher risk of cardiovascular mortality among those consuming the most UPF. These effects remain significant even after controlling for traditional risk factors like sodium, saturated fat, and sugar intake. Researchers believe chronic inflammation may be a key mechanism linking UPF to heart disease. Many ultra-processed foods contain ingredients that promote inflammatory responses, including advanced glycation end products (formed during high-temperature processing), certain emulsifiers, and refined carbohydrates that cause rapid blood sugar fluctuations. Perhaps most alarming is emerging evidence linking UPF to neurodegenerative conditions. A 2022 study published in Neurology examined data from over 72,000 people and found that increasing UPF intake by 10% was associated with a 25% higher risk of dementia. Researchers hypothesize that chronic inflammation, disruption of the gut microbiome, and exposure to certain additives may contribute to neurological damage over time. The gut-brain connection appears particularly important, as many UPF ingredients can alter the intestinal barrier's integrity, potentially allowing inflammatory compounds to enter circulation and affect brain function. Digestive disorders show strong connections to UPF as well. Studies have linked higher UPF consumption to increased risk of irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, and fatty liver disease. Many common food additives, particularly emulsifiers like carboxymethylcellulose and polysorbate 80, have been shown to disrupt the intestinal barrier and alter gut bacteria composition in ways that promote inflammation. These microbiome changes may have far-reaching effects throughout the body, as gut bacteria influence everything from immune function to hormone regulation. These wide-ranging health impacts suggest that UPF affects fundamental biological processes throughout the body, creating systemic disruption that manifests in various diseases depending on individual vulnerabilities. The evidence increasingly points to ultra-processed foods not just as contributors to specific health problems but as potential drivers of the broader pattern of chronic disease that characterizes modern societies.

Chapter 5: Food Matrix: Why Structure Matters More Than Nutrients

For decades, nutritional science has focused primarily on the chemical components of food - proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals. This reductionist approach treats food as essentially a delivery system for these nutrients, with the physical structure of food considered largely irrelevant. However, emerging research reveals that the physical form of food - what scientists call the "food matrix" - profoundly influences how our bodies process what we eat, often mattering more than the specific nutrients it contains. Natural foods have complex three-dimensional structures that affect digestion, nutrient absorption, and satiety. When we consume an apple, for example, we're not just consuming a collection of nutrients; we're eating an intricate arrangement of cells, fibers, and fluids that our digestive system must break down systematically. This matrix effect was elegantly demonstrated in a landmark study where researchers fed participants apples in three different forms: whole apple chunks, apple puree (with the structure broken down but all fiber intact), and apple juice (with fiber removed). Despite containing identical nutrients, the whole apple led to greater satiety and a more gradual blood sugar response. The puree and juice caused blood sugar to spike higher and then crash lower, leaving participants hungry again sooner. This happened despite the puree containing all the same fiber as the whole apple - proving that structure, not just ingredients, matters tremendously. Ultra-processed foods typically have their natural matrix completely destroyed through industrial processing. Ingredients are extracted, refined, and recombined in ways that bear little resemblance to their original form. Take breakfast cereal - whole grains are milled, their components separated, modified, and reassembled into uniform shapes. The resulting product may contain added fiber, but this doesn't recreate the complex matrix of the original grain. This destruction of food structure has profound implications for how our bodies respond. Studies show that even when calories and macronutrients are identical, foods with intact matrices are digested more slowly, produce more gradual blood sugar responses, and lead to greater satiety than their processed counterparts. The matrix effect extends to how nutrients interact within foods. In natural foods, nutrients exist in specific relationships with each other that can enhance absorption and utilization. For example, the fat in avocados helps the body absorb fat-soluble carotenoids, while certain compounds in tomatoes become more bioavailable when cooked with olive oil. These synergistic relationships are lost when foods are broken down and reconstructed. Simply adding back isolated nutrients doesn't recreate these beneficial interactions. This explains why studies consistently find that whole food sources of nutrients outperform supplements in health outcomes - the matrix matters. Perhaps most significantly, the food matrix influences how our bodies register caloric intake. Research by Susan Roberts at Tufts University found that we extract significantly fewer calories from minimally processed foods than nutrition labels would suggest. The intact cell walls in plants like nuts and seeds physically encapsulate some calories, preventing complete absorption in the digestive tract. Cooking and processing methods that break down these structures increase caloric availability. This means that 100 calories of almonds with intact cell structures provides fewer absorbable calories than 100 calories of almond butter where those structures have been destroyed. This matrix perspective helps explain why simply fortifying ultra-processed foods with nutrients doesn't make them equivalent to whole foods. A breakfast cereal may be enriched with fiber and vitamins, but its rapid digestion, high glycemic response, and reduced satiety effects stem from its altered physical structure. Understanding the importance of food matrix shifts our focus from nutrients to foods, and from foods to dietary patterns. It suggests that how ingredients are combined and prepared matters as much as what specific ingredients are consumed, providing scientific support for traditional culinary wisdom that has emphasized whole foods and time-honored preparation methods.

Chapter 6: Corporate Influence: How Industry Shapes Nutrition Science

The ultra-processed food industry represents one of the most powerful corporate sectors globally, with annual revenues exceeding $2 trillion. This immense economic influence translates directly into political power that shapes food policies, nutrition guidelines, and even the scientific research that informs our understanding of diet and health. Understanding this dynamic is essential for interpreting nutrition information critically. Food corporations operate under a fundamental mandate: maximize shareholder returns by selling more products. This creates an inherent conflict with public health goals that might involve reducing consumption of certain foods. When faced with evidence linking their products to health harms, companies typically respond not by reformulating or reducing production, but by deploying sophisticated strategies to protect their market position. These include funding favorable research, influencing regulatory bodies, and shifting blame to individual choices rather than systemic factors. The industry's research funding practices deserve particular scrutiny. Major food companies routinely finance nutrition studies through direct grants, research centers, and professional organizations. This funding creates subtle but powerful influences on research questions, methodologies, and interpretations. A systematic review published in PLOS Medicine found that studies funded by the food industry are four to eight times more likely to reach conclusions favorable to the sponsor's products than independently funded research. This isn't necessarily due to outright fraud but often results from more subtle biases in study design - like choosing comparison groups that make the sponsored product look better or selecting endpoints likely to show favorable results. Perhaps the most striking example of industry influence came to light through freedom of information requests that revealed Coca-Cola's extensive funding network. The company provided millions to researchers who emphasized physical inactivity, rather than sugary beverages, as the primary driver of obesity. Internal documents showed company executives explicitly discussing how to use science to "change the conversation" away from their products. The company even established the Global Energy Balance Network, which promoted the message that lack of exercise, not diet, was driving obesity rates - a position that conveniently absolved their products of responsibility. Industry influence extends beyond individual studies to shape dietary guidelines and nutrition policy. In many countries, representatives from food corporations serve on advisory committees that develop national nutrition recommendations. Through these positions, they advocate for nutrient-based approaches rather than food-based guidelines that might explicitly warn against ultra-processed products. The resulting guidelines often focus on moderation and balanced diets rather than clearly identifying harmful food categories. When Chile proposed warning labels for ultra-processed foods, industry groups mounted massive lobbying campaigns to weaken the regulations, threatening economic consequences if the measures passed. Perhaps most insidiously, food corporations have mastered the art of deflection, promoting narratives that focus on physical activity rather than diet quality. Their messaging emphasizes that "all foods can fit in a balanced diet" and that obesity results from individual choices rather than food environments. This framing serves to shift responsibility away from the products themselves and onto consumers, undermining support for systemic interventions. Meanwhile, marketing campaigns increasingly co-opt health concerns, with ultra-processed products rebranded as "natural," "clean," or "plant-based" without fundamental changes to their formulation. This corporate influence creates a challenging environment for both scientists and consumers. Researchers who publish findings critical of ultra-processed foods may face industry-funded attacks on their methodology or character. Consumers encounter a confusing landscape of contradictory nutrition messages, many shaped more by marketing imperatives than scientific evidence. Recognizing these dynamics doesn't mean dismissing all nutrition research, but it does require examining who funded studies, what questions they asked, and whether their conclusions align with broader patterns in independently funded research.

Chapter 7: Breaking Free: Practical Strategies for Healthier Eating

Reducing ultra-processed food consumption might seem daunting in a world where these products dominate supermarket shelves, but understanding what constitutes UPF and developing practical strategies can make this shift more manageable and sustainable. The goal isn't perfection but progress - even modest reductions in UPF consumption can yield significant health benefits. The first step is learning to identify UPF. While the complete NOVA classification can be complex, a simple rule of thumb is that if a product comes in packaging and contains ingredients you wouldn't find in a typical home kitchen, it's likely ultra-processed. Look for ingredients like modified starches, hydrogenated oils, protein isolates, and additives with chemical-sounding names like butylated hydroxyanisole or sodium erythorbate. Be particularly wary of health claims on packaging - ironically, products marketed as "low-fat," "high-protein," or "vitamin-enriched" are often among the most highly processed. Remember that ultra-processing isn't about how many ingredients a food contains but rather what kinds of ingredients and processes were used to create it. Understanding the environmental cues that drive UPF consumption is equally important. Food companies spend billions on marketing designed to trigger cravings and impulse purchases. They strategically place products at eye level in stores and create packaging designed to attract attention. Recognizing these tactics can help you make more conscious choices. Simple strategies like shopping with a list, avoiding shopping when hungry, and staying on the perimeter of the grocery store (where fresh foods are typically located) can reduce exposure to UPF. Similarly, being mindful of digital marketing through social media and apps can help reduce unconscious influences on food choices. Meal planning and preparation are powerful tools for reducing UPF consumption. Even spending a few hours each week preparing basic ingredients like roasted vegetables, cooked grains, or marinated proteins can make it easier to assemble quick meals without relying on ready-made options. Batch cooking and freezing portions can provide the same convenience as frozen meals but with control over ingredients. For those with limited time, focusing on "assembly cooking" rather than elaborate recipes can make whole-food meals manageable - combining pre-cut vegetables, canned beans, pre-cooked grains, and simple seasonings requires minimal time but avoids ultra-processing. For many people, a gradual approach works better than attempting to eliminate UPF entirely. You might start by identifying one or two UPF items you consume regularly and finding minimally processed alternatives. For example, replacing breakfast cereal with oatmeal topped with fruit, or swapping commercial salad dressing for olive oil and vinegar. As these changes become habitual, you can continue expanding your repertoire of minimally processed options. This gradual approach helps prevent the sense of deprivation that often leads to abandoning dietary changes. It's important to acknowledge that structural barriers make reducing UPF consumption more challenging for many people. Food deserts, time constraints, budget limitations, and lack of cooking facilities can all limit options. Addressing these issues requires both individual strategies and broader policy changes. On an individual level, community supported agriculture programs, food co-ops, and community gardens can improve access to whole foods. Cooking with neighbors or family members can distribute the time investment while building social connections. At a policy level, initiatives like farmers market vouchers for low-income households, improved school meal standards, and urban planning that ensures fresh food access in all neighborhoods can help create environments where healthier choices are more accessible. The good news is that taste preferences can change relatively quickly. Many people report that after reducing UPF consumption for even a few weeks, their cravings diminish and they begin to appreciate the more subtle flavors of minimally processed foods. The body's natural regulatory systems can begin to function more effectively, making it easier to recognize true hunger and fullness signals. This creates a positive cycle where healthier eating becomes increasingly rewarding and sustainable over time.

Summary

The science of ultra-processed foods reveals a profound mismatch between these industrial products and our biological systems. What makes UPFs uniquely problematic isn't simply their nutrient content but how they're designed to bypass our natural regulatory mechanisms. Their carefully engineered combinations of extracted ingredients, additives, and altered physical structures override satiety signals, stimulate reward pathways in ways similar to addictive substances, and disrupt the gut microbiome that influences everything from metabolism to mental health. This isn't just about calories or willpower - it's about products specifically designed to maximize consumption regardless of the body's actual needs. Moving forward requires both personal strategies and systemic change. While individuals can learn to identify and reduce UPF consumption, truly addressing this issue demands transforming food environments, marketing practices, and agricultural policies that currently make ultra-processed options the default choice. What might our communities look like if policies prioritized human wellbeing over corporate profit margins? How might our relationship with food change if we reclaimed traditional cooking knowledge while embracing sustainable innovation? For anyone interested in health, environmental sustainability, or social justice, understanding ultra-processed foods provides a crucial lens for seeing how these seemingly separate concerns intersect at the dinner table.

About Author

Loading...

Chris van Tulleken

Chris van Tulleken is an associate professor at University College London and a practicing infectious diseases doctor with a PhD in molecular virology. A BAFTA-winning broadcaster on the BBC across television and radio, he lives with his family in London.

Read more