Whether “ultra-processed” food is bad for your health depends on what food it is!

(I migrated this post from Tumblr, where I had posted in on 29 June 2025; it was last updated on 15 Jun. 2026.)

As the argument “ultra-processed” comes up over and again to malign certain food groups (like plant-based alternatives), I thought compiling a short overview might be in order…

In classification systems like “NOVA”, the category of “ultra-processed” food (UPF) is ill defined and it lumps together a hotch-potch of different foodstuffs, some of which can be bad for your health, some are neutral, and some may even be beneficial. Whether one should be concerned about eating a “UPF” very much depends on which kind of food it is. (It’s bad if it’s made of meat or relates to sweetened beverages.)

Generally, judging an outcome based on the process it was made with is not a very rigorous approach: Forging iron is not bad because it can be used to make swords. After all, it can also be used to make plough shares. What may be bad are swords. This means the final products (swords vs plough shares) should be assessed; saying a product is bad because it was forged is obviously flawed. Same for UPFs, what matters is the health impact of the final product, not how it was made.

So here are a few quotes from (mostly) scientific journals that looked into the concept of “UPF” – it is not a review, just a collection of articles that I had bookmarked, but they give an idea of what the weaknesses and flaws of the concept of “UPF” may be:  

• "Adherence to healthful plant-based diets is associated with more favourable health outcomes irrespective of UPF content, suggesting that overall plant-based diet quality may be more important than processing level for chronic disease prevention…" https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2026.101736 
• "… the UPF concept… also captures foods that are not necessarily harmful and even some that are beneficial to health. Moreover, available data from randomized controlled trials indicate that the “ultraprocessed food” label places undue emphasis on the processing methods of food. Therefore, the current evidence base suggests that policy guidance should distinguish nutritionally poor, calorie-dense, and rapidly consumed foods regardless of their degree of processing." https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aef3495
• "A major methodological limitation of the NOVA classification is the heterogeneity within the UPF (group 4) category, which groups together products with vastly different nutritional profiles and potential health impacts… regardless of whether some of these foods are potentially beneficial for health… One of the issues with these classifications is that they do not consider these therapeutic contexts and positive health effects of some UPFs… replacing some meat consumption with plant-based alternatives can yield more health benefits… many food additives like emulsifiers, stabilizers and some preservatives are not considered to increase risk of diseases and they are necessary for some kinds of foods… to maintain their quality, safety and shelf-life… It is commonly assumed that home-cooked meals are healthier than industrialized products, but it’s not always true…" https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980025101675
• "Positive associations between ultra-processed food consumption and adverse health outcomes have been found for processed meats, sweetened beverages (both sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened), and fats, spreads and sauces. Other ultra-processed foods have been associated with lower risk of these conditions, mainly breads, biscuits and breakfast cereals, and whole grains. Randomised clinical trials show that replacing animal products with plant-based foods, even when processed, leads to health benefits. These studies suggest that the Nova system may be improved by differentiating between animal and plant foods…" https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjnph-2025-001358
• "… because both the NOVA 1 and NOVA 4 groups include many different foods, unprocessed red meat (NOVA 1), for example, can be compared with factory-produced whole grain bread (NOVA 4), a comparison that likely is associated with a higher risk of cancer [for NOVA 1], or green leafy vegetables (NOVA 1) can be compared with processed meat (NOVA 4), a comparison that likely is associated with a lower risk of cancer [for NOVA 1]... A way to improve the definition... could be to perform substitution analyses comparing foods that are similar but have been processed in different ways…" https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanplh.2025.101413
• "In over 70,000 adults from three Korean cohorts, Kim et al. observed that the highest (vs. lowest) quartile of ultra-processed food (UPF) intake was associated with an 11% increased risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D)… Kim et al. also conducted a meta-analysis… [But] only certain types of UPF defined by the Nova framework were detrimental, whereas others, although highly processed, may exert neutral or protective effects. These findings have important implications for dietary recommendations and policies related to UPF… certain UPF groups have been consistently associated with higher T2D risk across studies. For example, processed meats... were significantly associated with increased risk of T2D in the three Korean cohorts, three US cohorts composed primarily of White participants, and one European cohort. Evidence of direct associations for... processed meats also extends to a US cohort of Black and White adults and a Brazilian cohort… The meta-analysis by Kim et al. reported the strongest association for processed meats... with T2D… Kim et al.’s findings support that the consumption of... processed meats should be strongly discouraged…" https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-025-01327-5
• "The ultra-processed food category is highly heterogeneous, encompassing products with varying ingredients and nutrient profiles. Plant-based milks, plant-based meat analogs, and margarine, typically classified as ultra-processed foods, differ markedly from their unprocessed animal-based counterparts: they do not contain cholesterol or heme iron, have lower concentrations of saturated fat, sulfur, and branched-chain amino acids, and provide dietary fiber, which is absent in animal-based foods. Replacing dairy milk with soymilk have been shown to reduce total cholesterol (TC), LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), and C-reactive protein, and is associated with a lower risk of breast cancer… plant-based meat analogs are associated with reductions in TC, LDL-C, body weight, plasma ammonia, and trimethylamine oxide. Substituting butter with soft margarine reduces TC and LDL-C, and is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events and mortality… ultra-processed plant-based foods… may offer better cardiometabolic outcomes than unprocessed animal-based products. As transitional tools, products such as plant-based milks, meat analogs, and margarine may facilitate dietary shifts. Public health guidance should reflect these nuances to support realistic, health-promoting transitions…" https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-025-00704-6
• "NOVA... has been critiqued for rigidity, inconsistent classifications, and weak links to health outcome... Currently, NOVA penalises those eating plant-based which is not evidence based... Nutritionally valuable meat alternatives [have]... evidence of positive impact on health... Plant based meat alternatives... appear to be neutral to beneficial..." https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202509.2556/v1
• "The question ‘Are all ultra-processed foods bad?’ requires a more nuanced answer than a simple yes or no... the NOVA system... fails to capture important distinctions in nutritional quality, processing methods, and health implications... Evidence shows significant heterogeneity in health associations across different types of UPFs. While some UPFs, particularly sugar-sweetened beverages and certain snack foods, show consistent associations with adverse health outcomes, others... demonstrate neutral or potentially beneficial effects. It is important to note that many of these associations had already been acknowledged by the public health community well before the UPF definition was created. The role of UPFs in food security, affordability, and environmental sustainability adds further complexity to their evaluation. These products often... contribute to reduced food waste through extended shelf-life capabilities. Rather than a categorical rejection of all UPFs, the evidence suggests that not all UPFs are inherently ‘bad’. Their health implications depend on various factors, including specific processing methods, nutritional composition, and the context of their consumption within overall dietary patterns." https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665125100645
• "The popularity of the terms "processed" and "ultra-processed" foods stems from a system… known as the NOVA system, which… reflects preconceived notions about "processing," not science… Observational studies have tried to use the system to scrutinize processed foods' role in diabetes… The primary drivers of the association were animal-based products… the plant-based ultra-processed foods were largely exonerated… The same phenomenon surfaced in [a cancer study]… animal-based products were associated with increased risk; plant-based alternatives were associated with reduced risk… even when processed plant foods are included… Bottom line: research suggests animal-derived foods tend to increase the risk, while plant-derived foods—even "ultra-processed" ones—tend not to… Pointing an overly vigorous finger of blame at "ultra-processed foods" distracts us from the true causes of illness. Among the most underappreciated facts is that biological processing—through an animal's body—is as much an issue as mechanical processing. When corn is fed to chickens to create drumsticks and wings, salivary and pancreatic amylase performs the same function as factory amylase… The animals' digestive tracts sequester fiber as effectively as any mechanized operation, and their digestive and anabolic systems markedly alter the macro- and micronutrient content of the nutritional input. As the chicken's metabolic processes convert corn's macronutrients into chicken wings, they increase fat content from 14% to 55% of calories, add cholesterol, and remove fiber… In conclusion, some processed foods are healthful, while others are not…" https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/116578
• "Plant-based meats have an image problem. It’s not flavor or appearance... Doctors and dietitians are reluctant to consider alternative proteins when advising patients on nutrition because they view these foods as ultraprocessed... Yet if carefully chosen, these foods can be a valid and helpful way to shift toward more plant-forward diets, which are good for people and the planet..." https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/21/health/plant-based-meat-benefits-wellness
• "The NOVA system shows inconsistencies and limitations … it is important to recognize that not all UPFs exert the same level of impact on health... broad generalizations may overlook important nuances within the category... The NOVA system is criticized for overlooking nutritional content and relying on overly broad categories that equate any and all processing with unhealthiness. It simplifies health impacts by not considering the complexity of processed ingredients… which may not be harmful. Additionally, it excludes important health factors, leading to bias against novel ingredients… [the] discussion often overlooks [i] the fact that UPF classification is not synonymous with low nutritional value and [ii] the heterogeneity of the products classified as UPFs. This nuance is essential in moving beyond the assumption that all UPFs are inherently unhealthy, and requires a more comprehensive understanding of the role processing plays in both the food system and health…" https://www.planteneers.com/en/white-paper/
• “plant-based protein-rich (PBPR) foods are often considered ‘ultra-processed’—and therefore perceived as unhealthy—despite their ability to provide various bioactive compounds beneficial for human health… Our results show that existing food classification systems may provide questionable categories for PBPR foods without considering their overall biochemical composition, including phytochemicals...” https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-025-01148-5
• “While plant-based meat is often categorised as a UPF… it differs significantly from the energy-dense, nutrient-poor UPFs most commonly linked with poor health outcomes… plant-based meat can serve as a health-promoting alternative to processed conventional meat—one of the UPF subcategories most strongly associated with increased disease risk…” https://pan-int.org/news/blog-post-title-one-h42r8-4z5ks-txgfj-4k9db-pxn4x-cnrwj-ze6ad-e2dzh-kfspk-r47b3
• “even unprocessed food is often eventually processed at home, for example by cooking. Classification systems primarily take into account the processing technique used for the product and the… added ingredients, rather than the biochemical composition of the product. It cannot be assumed that all processing makes a product unhealthy, because ultimately it is only the nutritional components of the edible product that matter, and how they are absorbed by our bodies. These determine the nutritional value and healthiness of food products... food processing should not be seen as exclusively harmful, as fermentation, for example, can even improve the nutritional value of a product...” https://www.utu.fi/en/news/press-release/study-reveals-impact-of-processing-on-biochemical-composition-of-plant-based
• “Studies link high consumption of ultra-processed foods to increased risks of a variety of adverse health outcomes… However, these associations appear to be driven largely by sweetened beverages and processed meats, raising the possibility that plant-based meats (PBM) could ironically offer a solution to the ultra-processed foods problem. Unlike other ultra-processed foods, PBM rated as healthier than the foods they are intended to substitute and similarly countervail other negative criteria typical of ultra-processed products. Compared with PBM, conventional meat has the inferior nutrient profile, higher calorie density, and more missing phytonutrients, and results in less satiety and more weight gain, gut dysbiosis, and oxidative stress. With PBM, insulin resistance and inflammation outcomes are similar or superior to meat, depending on the PBM tested… Other advantages of PBM include lower potential cancer risk and enhanced food safety. The lowering of LDL cholesterol from the partial replacement of meat with PBM could alone potentially save thousands of lives a year in the United States and billions of healthcare dollars. Whole plant foods fare even better, but PBM appear to be the rare ultra-processed exception in that they are preferable to the foods they were designed to replace…” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nutos.2025.04.005
• “the common criticisms of ultra-processed foods (UPF) do not apply to soya-based meat and dairy alternatives… NOVA is overly simplistic and does not adequately evaluate the nutritional attributes of meat and dairy alternatives based on soya. Simply put, soya burgers are not Twinkies, even though NOVA similarly classifies these products... NOVA does a disservice to the public by suggesting that because soya burgers and soyamilk are NOVA-classified as UPF, they should be avoided. These foods can aid in the transition to and maintenance of plant-based diets…” https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023000617
• “Eating less meat is increasingly seen as a healthier, more ethical option… Popular PBMA [plant-based meat alternatives] products, … including plant-based mince, burgers, sausages and meatballs, are often perceived as low-quality, ultra-processed foods. However, we argue that the mere industrial processing of ingredients of plant origin does not make a PBMA product ultra-processed by default... Based on our findings, we concluded that the occasional replacement of animal meat with PBMA products… can promote positive changes in the gut microbiome of consumers...” https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10092040
• “UPF groups demonstrated divergent associations. Sugar-/artificially-sweetened drinks and processed meats were associated with higher CVD [cardio-vascular disease] risk, whereas inverse associations were observed for bread/cold cereals, yoghurt/dairy desserts, and savoury snacks…” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2024.100859
• “high consumption of UPF, sugar-sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, processed meat, and processed red meat might increase all-cause mortality, while breakfast cereals might decrease it. Future studies are needed to address lack of standardized methods in UPF categorization…” https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwac039
• “NOVA fails to correctly classify foods regarding healthiness and naturalness. NOVA represents a barrier for the industry to move towards healthier and more natural foods... Importantly, there were significant differences between them in terms of Nutri-score and FNI [Food Naturalness Index] values, which suggests that it is not appropriate to rate an overall product category… as nutritionally poor and unnatural...” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022.11.009
• “Avoidance of foods deemed as UPF… may not address obesity but could decrease intakes of folate, calcium and dietary fibre… outcomes [have not] been compared with vetted patterns, such as Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, which base food selection on food groups and nutrient contribution. NOVA fails to demonstrate the criteria required for dietary guidance: understandability, affordability, workability and practicality…” https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665118002513
• “In the NOVA classification system, descriptive criteria are used to assign foods to one of four groups based on processing-related criteria... current NOVA criteria do not allow for robust and functional food assignments…” https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-022-01099-1
• “although total UPF intake is associated with adverse health outcomes, this is not the case for many subcategories of UPFs. Furthermore, in many instances, clinical research shows that PBMAs [plant-based meat alternatives] and plant milks have beneficial effects relative to their animal-based counterparts. Collectively, the evidence leads to two conclusions. First, PBMAs represent a viable approach for lowering the dietary animal to plant protein ratio. Second, NOVA paints with too broad a brush and is insufficiently nuanced to serve as a public guide for food purchasing decisions and may distract consumers from focusing on the importance of nutrient content…” https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.70039
• “meat alternatives offer potential solutions to the… health issues associated with animal meat consumption. Consequently, it is important to distinguish them from other UPFs, which are known to have detrimental effects on health. Therefore, this paper proposed a reassessment of the UPF classification system, the establishment of uniform nutritional profiles for meat alternatives, and the dissemination of their beneficial impacts…” https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.17355
• “In no NOVA category was the consumption of plant-based processed foods positively and significantly associated with weight gain. The top three independent predictors of weight loss were reduced intakes of processed, unprocessed or minimally processed, and ultra-processed animal foods… replacing animal products with plant-based foods may be an effective weight-loss strategy, even when processed plant-based foods are included…” https://doi.org/10.1186/s12986-025-00912-5
• “heterogeneity was observed across UPF sub-groups, with... plant-based alternatives associated with lower incident type 2 diabetes mellitus…” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101043
• "Among UPF subgroups, associations were most notable for animal-based products... Other subgroups such as... plant-based alternatives were not associated with risk…” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2023.100771
• “replacing cow's milk with soymilk (incl. sweetened soymilk) does not adversely affect established cardiometabolic risk factors and may result in advantages... The classification of plant-based dairy alternatives such as soymilk as ultra-processed may be misleading…” https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03524-7
• “Meat substitutes... are rated as ultra-processed foods. However, compared with red meat products, they... can provide a diet that contains fewer nutrients-to-limit, like salt and saturated fats” https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023001945
• “Given the known favorable relationship of plant-rich diets... this raises questions about whether all types of UPFs increase Type 2 Diabetes [T2D] risk... total UPF consumption is associated with higher T2D risk. However, some UPF subgroups were associated with lower risk” https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-1993
• “the nutritional profiles of PBMAs [plant-based meat alternatives]… generally align with recommendations for improving cardiovascular health; compared with meat, PBMAs are usually lower in saturated fat and higher in polyunsaturated fat and dietary fibre. Some dietary trials that have replaced meat with PBMAs have reported improvements in CVD [cardio-vascular disease] risk factors… No currently available evidence suggests that the concerning aspects of PMBAs (eg, food processing and high sodium content) negate the potential cardiovascular benefits… replacing meat with PBMAs may be cardioprotective…” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2023.11.005
• “Although it is evident to most that biscuits and chips should not be consumed in excess, there are other highly processed foods, such as wholegrain bread or calcium-fortified soya milk, that can play an important role in healthy, sustainable diets… these foods are categorised as highly processed; however, assuming that a food is unhealthy and unsustainable simply because it is highly processed is inaccurate and potentially misleading… The idea that a food product is unhealthy and unsustainable just because it is manufactured or processed lacks biological plausibility and confuses consumers…” https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00305-X
• “research suggests that it's some specific types of ultra-processed foods foods that are linked to worse health in studies that examine this, rather than all ultra-processed foods. This includes categories like sugary drinks and processed meats, which we have known for some time are bad for health. Eating other foods classed as ultra-processed does not predict worse health. And some studies have even shown them to predict better health. Brown bread and cereals, are good examples. Nor is there strong evidence that whether a food is ultra-processed or not is what determines how it may affect your health…” https://theconversation.com/ultra-processed-foods-heres-what-the-evidence-actually-says-about-them-220255
• “the field of nutrition is regularly criticized for changing recommendations based on incomplete science. In this case, ignoring evidence that some UPFs may have practical utility, risks damaging scientific credibility…” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.10.034
• “for reducing T2DM [type 2 diabetes mellitus], it is reasonable at the very least to question an overall UPF metric as the most helpful public health strategy, and to focus on reducing specific UPF, for several reasons. First, our findings show significant heterogeneity across UPF sub-groups with T2DM, not just neutral associations, but several UPF with beneficial outcomes when consumed in place of non-UPF… Second, with an overall UPF metric, it is important to consider that if several UPF sub-groups have large positive associations with poor health outcomes, combining these sub-groups with UPF sub-groups with inverse associations into a single overall UPF metric would plausibly result in an overall UPF metric with positive associations. For example, in the United States, SSBs [sugar-sweetened beverages] and processed meats largely explain the overall UPF association with cardiovascular disease outcomes, and for stroke, when SSBs and processed meats are excluded, overall UPF even becomes inversely associated…” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101108
• “Discussing the NOVA concept, it remains unclear whether the processing of foods leads to increased health risks or if ultra-processed food consumption is only a measure for poor diet quality…” https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2024.2317877
• “It is important to distinguish between formulation and processing of a food. In most cases it is the formulation more than the processing that results in foods that are not recommended as part of a healthy diet. Such “ultra-formulated” foods are unhealthy because they are high in added sugar and other caloric sweeteners, refined flours saturated fats and salt to increase palatability. The understanding that processing and formulation are distinct will assist health professionals in identifying the types of foods that are unhealthy and contribute to overconsumption and obesity…” https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/osp4.657
• “Reduced risk of diet-related chronic diseases with intake of certain UPF food groups underscores the importance of addressing complexity when formulating recommendations. Clear recommendations should limit unhealthy UPF but offer more precise guidance surrounding consumption of other UPF… Acknowledging the differential health impacts of food processing by food group provides an opportunity for more precise recommendations around processing in lieu of blanket guidance that unnecessarily maligns certain processing techniques or formulations without strong evidence of adverse health effects… it may be prudent to promote intake of otherwise recommended food groups, regardless of processing…” https://doi.org/10.2337/dci23-0018
• “The terms ‘processing’ and ‘ultra-processing’, which are crucial to the NOVA classification, are ill-defined, as no scientific, measurable or precise reference parameters exist for them. Likewise, the theoretical grounds of the NOVA classification are unclear and inaccurate. Overall, the NOVA classification conflicts with the classic, evidence-based evaluation of foods based on composition and portion size because NOVA postulates that the food itself (or how much of it is eaten) is unimportant, but rather that dietary effects are due to how the food is produced… the NOVA system suffers from a lack of biological plausibility so the assertion that ultra-processed foods are intrinsically unhealthful is largely unproven, and needs further examination and elaboration…” https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954422422000117
• “Healthy dietary patterns can include most of their energy from UPF, still receive a high diet quality score, and contain adequate amounts of most macro- and micronutrients…” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.06.028