Across the aisles of modern life, a quiet anxiety has taken hold: the fear that the food we reach for most readily is slowly doing us harm. Ultra-processed foods now account for more than half of calories consumed in the UK, and the evidence linking them to serious illness is real — yet scientists remain divided on whether the danger lies in the processing itself or simply in the fat, sugar, and salt these foods tend to carry. In that unresolved space between alarm and reassurance, consumers are left to navigate alone, often guided more by fear than by understanding. The deeper question may no
Dietitian debunks ultra-processed food panic: balance matters more than ingredient lists
One food does not make your diet healthy or unhealthy
Mark
So the real disagreement here isn't about whether ultra-processed foods exist or whether they're linked to health problems. It's about why they're harmful, right?
Mimi
Exactly. The evidence that they're linked to obesity, heart disease, diabetes is solid. But scientists genuinely disagree on whether it's the processing itself that's the problem, or just that these foods tend to be loaded with fat, sugar, and salt.
Luke
And that matters because if it's just the nutritional content, then a processed food with good nutritional balance might be fine. But if processing itself damages health, then even a "healthy" ultra-processed food could be risky.
Mimi
Right. And that uncertainty is what creates the panic. People don't know which framework to trust.
Mark
The dietitian seems to be saying the panic itself is the problem. That the black-and-white messaging is actually harmful.
Mimi
She is. She's arguing that fear around food isn't healthy, and that balance over time matters more than any single food choice. Her point is that a chicken nugget with carrots and pasta isn't a disaster.
Luke
But van Tulleken would say that's missing the point—that food companies deliberately engineer these products to be irresistible, and that's a structural problem, not an individual choice problem.
Mimi
True. He's saying the market itself is rigged toward ultra-processed foods because they're more profitable, even if companies could make healthier versions.
Mark
So is there any common ground?
Luke
Better labeling. Both sides seem to agree that clearer information about fat, sugar, and salt content would help. But that's not the same as solving the underlying disagreement.
Mimi
And it doesn't resolve whether processing itself is the issue or just a marker for poor nutrition.
Mark
So we're back where we started—confused but informed.
The Pulse
- More than half of UK calories come from ultra-processed foods, and the health consequences — obesity, heart disease, diabetes, mental illness — are well documented and growing harder to ignore.
- Scientists cannot agree on whether the harm comes from industrial processing itself or simply from the poor nutritional profiles these foods typically carry, leaving consumers caught between competing warnings.
- A leading dietitian challenges the absolutism of anti-UPF messaging, arguing that fear-based thinking about individual foods does its own kind of damage — and that nutritional balance over time matters far more than any single ingredient list.
- Food manufacturers push back against process-focused criticism, pointing to significant industry-wide reductions in salt, sugar, and calories as evidence that the system is already self-correcting.
- Clearer labeling and more honest public messaging are emerging as the most practical path forward — tools that could shift the conversation from shame to informed choice.
Across the aisles of modern life, a quiet anxiety has taken hold: the fear that the food we reach for most readily is slowly doing us harm. Ultra-processed foods now account for more than half of calories consumed in the UK, and the evidence linking them to serious illness is real — yet scientists remain divided on whether the danger lies in the processing itself or simply in the fat, sugar, and salt these foods tend to carry. In that unresolved space between alarm and reassurance, consumers are left to navigate alone, often guided more by fear than by understanding. The deeper question may not be what we eat in a single meal, but whether the way we talk about food is making us any healthier.
The supermarket aisle has become a place of quiet dread. Ultra-processed foods — UPFs — are now linked in study after study to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and mental health problems, and more than half the calories consumed in the UK come from them. The evidence is real. But when experts are asked to explain exactly why these foods are harmful, the answers diverge, and that gap is where most of us are stuck.
The definition of a UPF is itself contested — broadly, any food with more than five ingredients, at least one of which you wouldn't find in a normal kitchen. The deeper scientific dispute is whether the harm comes from the processing itself or simply from the fact that these foods tend to be high in fat, sugar, and salt. Dr. Chris van Tulleken, a prominent voice on the dangers of UPFs, acknowledges they are nearly impossible to avoid — even in his own home.
Dietitian Maeve Hanan sees the panic differently. Reviewing a typical family shopping list, she paused at bran flakes — technically ultra-processed, but something she buys herself for its nutritional value. She worries that the black-and-white messaging around UPFs fuels fear, and fear around food, she says, is never good. The shopping list itself passed muster: a reasonable mix across food groups, with fruit and vegetables alongside the processed items. A long ingredient list, she explains, does not make something inherently unhealthy.
Chicken nuggets are the test case many parents dread. The ingredients sound alarming, but most are legally required flour additives or approved raising agents. Served with carrots and pasta, as part of a varied day, they are not a dietary disaster. "One food does not make your diet healthy or unhealthy," Hanan says. "It's about getting that balance over time."
Van Tulleken is less reassured. He points to the engineered appeal of UPFs — their deliberate tastiness, their moreishness — and argues that food companies know how to make healthier versions but choose not to because profit margins depend on the current formula. He calls for better labeling so consumers can see at a glance which foods are high in fat, sugar, and salt. The Food and Drink Federation counters that the industry has already cut salt, sugar, and calories by nearly a fifth in five years, and that nutritional content — not processing — should be the measure that matters.
What emerges from the debate is less a verdict than a direction: the pattern of eating over time matters more than any single meal, and messaging that lets people make informed choices without shame may do more good than the alarm that currently fills the aisle.
The supermarket aisle stretches ahead like a test you're not sure you can pass. Every box demands scrutiny. Every ingredient list feels like a verdict on your parenting. Ultra-processed foods—UPFs, as they're now called—have become the thing you're supposed to fear, linked in study after study to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, mental health problems, and early death. More than half the calories consumed in the UK come from these foods. The evidence is real. But when you ask the experts why these foods are actually harmful, you get different answers, and that gap between certainty and confusion is where most of us are stuck.
The definition itself is slippery. A UPF is generally something with more than five ingredients, at least one of which you wouldn't find in a normal kitchen—emulsifiers, additives, flavorings, the things that make food shelf-stable and appealing. But the real question—whether the harm comes from the processing itself or simply from the fact that these foods tend to be high in fat, sugar, salt, and calories—remains unsettled among scientists and doctors. Dr. Chris van Tulleken, who has written books and made documentaries about the dangers of ultra-processed food, says they're almost impossible to avoid. Even his own family eats them.
Maeve Hanan, a dietitian with the British Dietetic Association, sees the panic differently. When asked to review a typical weekly shopping list, she paused at a box of bran flakes—technically ultra-processed, but something she buys for her own family because of its health benefits. She calls the messaging around UPFs "black and white," and that absolutism troubles her. "This food is good. This food is bad," she says. "It just fuels fear—and fear around food is never good." The verdict on the shopping list itself was reassuring: a good mix across food groups, with plenty of fruit and vegetables alongside the processed items. The presence of a long ingredient list doesn't make something inherently unhealthy, she explains. Nutritional value matters far more.
Take chicken nuggets, the food most parents feel guilty about serving. The ingredients sound alarming—disodium diphosphate, calcium carbonate, niacin, thiamin. But these are mandatory additions to white wheat flour under UK law, or raising agents that make the batter crisp. All of them have been tested and approved. Yes, nuggets are higher in fat and salt than a plain chicken breast, so moderation makes sense. But served with raw carrots and pasta, as part of a day that includes other food groups, they're not a dietary disaster. "One food does not make your diet healthy or unhealthy," Hanan says. "It's about getting that balance over time."
Van Tulleken pushes back. He points to the sugar content in breakfast cereals, waving an empty box of a particularly sugary, chocolatey brand—the kind a seven-year-old can demolish several bowls of in a single sitting. "UPFs are tasty, they are moreish—that's the whole point," he says. Food companies know how to make healthier versions, he argues, but they don't because it's not profitable. There's growing evidence that industrial processing itself affects health, independent of the nutritional content. What's needed, he says, is better labeling so consumers can see which foods are high in fat, sugar, and salt—information that would expose the majority of UPFs for what they are.
The Food and Drink Federation, representing manufacturers, disputes this framing. It says the industry has invested millions in healthier products and has cut salt, sugar, and calories by almost a fifth in just five years, all in line with government regulation and dietary guidance. The federation's position is clear: focus on nutritional content, not the level of processing.
So when four chicken nuggets land on a child's plate, alongside carrots and pasta, the shame doesn't have to follow. The child is active, doesn't eat nuggets every night, and has eaten from multiple food groups throughout the day. He's healthy and happy. The beige food phase will pass. What matters is the pattern, not the individual choice—and that's a message that might actually let parents breathe.
Notable Quotes
There's a growing hysteria about UPFs, mainly because the messaging around them is so black and white. This food is good. This food is bad. It just fuels fear—and fear around food is never good.— Maeve Hanan, British Dietetic Association
UPFs are tasty, they are moreish—that's the whole point. Food companies know how to make healthy food. The reason they don't is because it's not profitable.— Dr. Chris van Tulleken
Want the full story?
Read the original at bbc.co.uk ↗