The Big Lie on Ultra-Processed Food

The lie hidden behind the distinction between "genuine" food and "ultra-processed" food. Discover the deception behind the simplistic opposition between 'healthy' and 'harmful' and how consumers are influenced by these categories for commercial and political reasons. Health doesn't depend on processing but on the dosage and the individual's diet. Who benefits from pushing this falsehood?

WHAT'S HAPPENING The trend of categorizing food as "natural", associated with homemade or directly harvested from the earth, thereby linked to health, organic, and authenticity concepts, is on the rise. On the other hand, "processed" or "ultra-processed" food is linked to industrial production and, as a result, to harmfulness, adulteration, and artificiality. Industrially produced food is often confused with the so-called "junk food".

This dichotomy is frequently used to justify overeating, obesity, and non-communicable diseases. It's then exploited commercially and politically to steer consumers towards natural products rather than industrial ones, believing they are healthier and can help overcome the challenges posed by poor nutrition, an increasingly serious problem. These misleading assumptions won't yield results. The causes of malnutrition are varied and highly complex.

WHY IT'S IMPORTANT The distinction between "natural" food and "ultra-processed" is conceptually wrong. It's misleading as it gives consumers a distorted view of reality. It's not a mere representation but a deception. Individuals are deceived by the classic dialectics of historical materialism, opposing natural and healthy food to industrial and harmful food. Hence the communicative effectiveness of the polarization between "good" food made by craftsmen and farmers and "bad" food by profit-seeking industries.

TWO QUESTIONS We need to ponder two issues and try to resolve them, demonstrating the deception of this pointless categorization:

Does the distinction between natural and ultra-processed food genuinely help differentiate beneficial foods from harmful ones? Are consumers truly vulnerable in the face of industries offering ultra-processed food?

THE NUTRIENT DOESN'T MAKE THE POISON The categorization of food based on the level of processing, as suggested by the Nova system, provides a skewed view of industrial food and idealizes natural food. The healthiness or harm of both doesn't depend on the number of ingredients but on their caloric contribution and the quality of nutrients relative to the amount consumed.

IN FACT The presence of various nutrients may increase the risk of overly caloric foods, but it can also enhance their healthiness and shelf life, thus reducing food wastage.

AND Natural food can also be unsuitable for health, have a short lifespan, and provide excessive calories if included in an unbalanced diet.

THE INDIVIDUAL'S PRIMACY The healthiness of a food item isn't determined by its processing but by its composition and caloric intake in relation to an individual's diet. Industrial food is undoubtedly designed for pleasure and to satisfy consumers' psyches, but it's also the result of years of investment and research to better combine health, pleasure, and caloric needs - it's called innovation.

WHAT SCIENCE!!! In conclusion, the term "ultra-processed food" has no objective value other than to provide us with a count of the nutrients in a formula. It doesn't offer any caloric value, let alone the consequences it causes in the individual who consumes it. Instead, it has a strong emotional impact and is used for commercial and political purposes to influence consumer decisions, offering them a slogan rather than detailed information on the nutrients present.

THE PROBLEM TO ADDRESS We should be concerned about the portions and easy availability of industrial food, its accessibility. Natural food is less accessible than industrial food (doesn't benefit from economies of scale, costs more, and has logistical and productivity issues), but it faces the same portion issue.

WHAT TO DO The real dilemma for consumers isn't the food companies versus traditional dishes, but those who tend to classify foods as "good" and "bad". The latter believe that consumers can't make informed choices and thus seek to influence them.

Consumers must have the opportunity to gain knowledge and make informed and, consequently, free choices.