Leggi l’articolo in italiano

In recent years, the debate around ultra-processed foods (UPF) has made headlines across Western media, especially in the English-speaking world. Studies, opinions, and recommendations have multiplied. Yet one unresolved issue remains: do we truly know what we mean when we talk about UPFs?

The concept has become a powerful symbol in public discourse, but also a vague and controversial one. Before establishing their effects and consequences, perhaps we should ask: do we even know how to define them?

A CONCEPT WITHOUT FOUNDATION 

A series of recent studies, including an open letter by international scientists, an in-depth analysis published in Nature, and a report by the UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN), have raised alarm bells. They all come to similar conclusions: there’s a lack of clear, shared definitions; the scientific evidence is still weak; and there’s a high risk of misinterpretation.

Despite these critical issues, the UPF narrative continues to gain strength. Why? Because it aligns with simple, intuitive cognitive patterns: what is natural is perceived as good, and what is industrial is perceived as bad. A historicist rhetoric contrasts authentic, traditional food with industrial food, creating a narrative in which the consumer is the victim and industry the enemy. It’s a reassuring story, but more moralistic than scientific.

THE RISK OF AN OVERSIMPLIFIED NARRATIVE 

The story being told is familiar: on one side, the ethical superiority of traditional food; on the other, the global food industry as the enemy. But does this opposition actually help solve complex issues like obesity and chronic non-communicable diseases? For many, the answer is NO.

These diseases are multifactorial and depend not just on what we eat, but also on how and when we eat and on the socioeconomic context in which we live. Reducing everything to a simple natural vs. industrial dichotomy can be misleading. Moreover, the positive role that technology can play in providing safe, accessible, and nutritious food, especially for vulnerable populations, is often underestimated.

THE NOVA SYSTEM AT THE HEART OF THE CONFUSION 

At the center of the debate is the NOVA system, the primary classification scheme for ultra-processed foods. However, it has fundamental flaws: it doesn’t assess nutritional content, relies on vague criteria, and often contradicts itself.

A few examples reveal the complexity: pasta tomato, basil, and parmesan can be classified as a UPF if produced industrially. A ready-made lasagna is considered UPF. Even wine may or may not fall into the category, depending on who produces it. This highlights how arbitrary the classification can be.

FREQUENCY, PORTION SIZE, NUTRIENT DENSITY: THE REAL RISK FACTORS 

This isn’t about blindly defending the food industry. But labeling something as “ultra-processed” tells us little or nothing about its actual quality. Far more important are portion sizes, frequency of consumption, and nutrient density.

The real danger is that attention may be diverted from more pressing priorities: nutrient quality, eating habits, microbiome health, and the social inequalities that affect access to healthy food.

A DEBATE THAT NEEDS RETHINKING 

Perhaps it’s time to reconsider how we talk about ultra-processed food, not to protect the status quo, but to strengthen the scientific foundation and give consumers truly useful tools.

The questions are urgent: can we build food policies on such fragile definitions? Should we judge a food by its label or by its health effects? Continuing to ignore these questions risks fueling a sterile debate, one that offers simple answers to problems that are anything but simple. It’s time to raise the level of the discussion.

Read Health Starts With Lifesyile>>>