Great article as ever, Gunter. As someone who lost 43% of her body weight and went from a BMI of 38 to 22, I can safely say that banning or adding more tax to UPFs would not have stopped me gaining weight. I lost weight while eating plenty of UPFs and still love a bowl of cocopops!
I think we see the difference in the 'food system' when we travel. On a recent trip to Italy, I saw amazing fresh foods available in very mundane environments (airport cafes, local corner shops etc). Everyone eats 'well'. It's part of culture. All European countries have their own specific food approaches embedded at a cultural level. A trip to anywhere else highlights how miserable our food system feels in the UK. While I am not against UPFs, I would like to be able to buy more fruit etc when out and about.
Advertising / marketing plays a huge role in our subconscious food choices. If you gave someone a massive budget to market apples, would it work? Could you actually create more demand for fruit?
Thanks - I think we are missing the really important parts of the discussion. And one problem is of course human nature - most people know what a healthy diet should be, and still choose differently.
Get thoughts Gunter and I agree there alot to digest on how so-called UPF impact human health. The simple slogan has captured much interest, side stepping much of the nuances that nutrition science seems to suffer greatly when experts arfe not given the opportunity to explain both sides of the argument. I will offer though, as consumers I feel our choices are limited, yes maybe influenced by demand, but look at the grab'n'go or meal-deals sector or even the high street dominated by QSR where its pretty challenging to consume healthier meals where the marketing and price strategies have a a greater influence on us than we care to admit. This I feel needs challenging.
This conversation often goes in the wrong direction. The goal is not to demonize foods but to recognize that foods exist on a spectrum of quality. Whole, processed, and ultra-processed are simply markers of how far a food has drifted from its natural state and, by extension, its nutritional value.
Over decades of working with people, I have seen consistent improvements when the focus stays on whole, nutrient-dense foods and moves away from products built around added sugars, refined salts, and industrial fats. Arguing over “processed versus ultra-processed” misses the point. The real issue is food quality. When quality goes up, health tends to follow.
I hear you but that debate confuses a narrow laboratory effect with real-world nutrition.
Processing can increase the bioavailability of isolated nutrients in specific cases, but whole foods deliver nutrients in natural ratios, alongside fiber, enzymes and valuable cofactors that regulate absorption and use. Bioavailability in a lab does not equal better nourishment in the body. Many processed foods raise the availability of one nutrient while stripping others, disrupting metabolic balance.
In practice, people do not suffer from a lack of absorbable "isolated" nutrients. They suffer from diets that overwhelm the body with refined inputs that strip away the physical and biological cues that regulate how food is properly absorbed and metabolized.
Another overlooked fact is that processed foods systematically increase exposure to ingredients the human body was never meant to process, including refined seed oils, excess sugars, emulsifiers, preservatives, flavor enhancers, and processing byproducts. These are added to improve shelf life, texture, and palatability, not health. Even when (chemical) "vitamins" are added back, they sit in a food matrix that promotes overconsumption, blood sugar disruption, and low satiety.
Whole foods come with built-in limits and safeguards. Processing removes those limits, with ingredients divorced from the context that tells the body how to use them. The result is a product that may look “nutritionally adequate” on paper while increasing metabolic stress in practice.
Great article as ever, Gunter. As someone who lost 43% of her body weight and went from a BMI of 38 to 22, I can safely say that banning or adding more tax to UPFs would not have stopped me gaining weight. I lost weight while eating plenty of UPFs and still love a bowl of cocopops!
I think we see the difference in the 'food system' when we travel. On a recent trip to Italy, I saw amazing fresh foods available in very mundane environments (airport cafes, local corner shops etc). Everyone eats 'well'. It's part of culture. All European countries have their own specific food approaches embedded at a cultural level. A trip to anywhere else highlights how miserable our food system feels in the UK. While I am not against UPFs, I would like to be able to buy more fruit etc when out and about.
Advertising / marketing plays a huge role in our subconscious food choices. If you gave someone a massive budget to market apples, would it work? Could you actually create more demand for fruit?
Thanks - I think we are missing the really important parts of the discussion. And one problem is of course human nature - most people know what a healthy diet should be, and still choose differently.
It’s eye-opening how much the focus on ultra-processed foods can distract from bigger nutrition issues. Great article!
Thank you!
Get thoughts Gunter and I agree there alot to digest on how so-called UPF impact human health. The simple slogan has captured much interest, side stepping much of the nuances that nutrition science seems to suffer greatly when experts arfe not given the opportunity to explain both sides of the argument. I will offer though, as consumers I feel our choices are limited, yes maybe influenced by demand, but look at the grab'n'go or meal-deals sector or even the high street dominated by QSR where its pretty challenging to consume healthier meals where the marketing and price strategies have a a greater influence on us than we care to admit. This I feel needs challenging.
This conversation often goes in the wrong direction. The goal is not to demonize foods but to recognize that foods exist on a spectrum of quality. Whole, processed, and ultra-processed are simply markers of how far a food has drifted from its natural state and, by extension, its nutritional value.
Over decades of working with people, I have seen consistent improvements when the focus stays on whole, nutrient-dense foods and moves away from products built around added sugars, refined salts, and industrial fats. Arguing over “processed versus ultra-processed” misses the point. The real issue is food quality. When quality goes up, health tends to follow.
But processed foods can often have higher nutritional value because processing makes nutrients more bioavailable.
Hi Gunter
I hear you but that debate confuses a narrow laboratory effect with real-world nutrition.
Processing can increase the bioavailability of isolated nutrients in specific cases, but whole foods deliver nutrients in natural ratios, alongside fiber, enzymes and valuable cofactors that regulate absorption and use. Bioavailability in a lab does not equal better nourishment in the body. Many processed foods raise the availability of one nutrient while stripping others, disrupting metabolic balance.
In practice, people do not suffer from a lack of absorbable "isolated" nutrients. They suffer from diets that overwhelm the body with refined inputs that strip away the physical and biological cues that regulate how food is properly absorbed and metabolized.
Another overlooked fact is that processed foods systematically increase exposure to ingredients the human body was never meant to process, including refined seed oils, excess sugars, emulsifiers, preservatives, flavor enhancers, and processing byproducts. These are added to improve shelf life, texture, and palatability, not health. Even when (chemical) "vitamins" are added back, they sit in a food matrix that promotes overconsumption, blood sugar disruption, and low satiety.
Whole foods come with built-in limits and safeguards. Processing removes those limits, with ingredients divorced from the context that tells the body how to use them. The result is a product that may look “nutritionally adequate” on paper while increasing metabolic stress in practice.