Not Food: Time to Call Ultra-Processed Products by Their True Name

Abstract

Over the last decade, volumes of international studies have illuminated the potential harms associated with ultra-processed products sold as foods. These potential harms include, but are not limited to, an increased risk of non-communicable diseases, poor mental health, and early mortality. Studies examining such products and health have included top-down methods (e.g., nutritional epidemiology), bottom-up approaches (e.g., animal and pre-clinical mechanistic studies), and human intervention trials. The identification of potential harms associated with high levels of food processing has been aided by the NOVA Food Classification System, developed around 2009. Here, in this perspective essay, we argue that lexicon matters, and the continued reference to such ultra-processed products as “foods” is a barrier to policy-related discourse. Using a historical framework, we contend that the term “ultra-processed food” sits in foundational misalignment with how food has been defined, perceived, deliberated on, engaged with, and experienced by humans over millennia. Moreover, we suggest that language that positions ultra-processed products as “food” is part of a mindset that privileges technology and the continued application of isolated nutrients as a means to remedy deeply rooted socioeconomic problems. In the context of global policy, the parallels between food-like ultra-processed products and tobacco are extraordinary.