Why we need to rethink our attitudes to ‘processed food’

And how our perceptions are clouding the conversation about sustainability, health, and plant-based eating

Part Two of a two-part series. In Part One, we looked at how not all processed foods are created equal. Now we’ll look at why it’s important to get a clear perspective – especially when it comes to plant-based choices and the urgent issue of sustainability.

Public concern about processed food is continuing to grow, with consumers increasingly wary of long ingredient lists and unfamiliar additives, and headlines warning of the dangers of ‘ultra-processed’ foods. As a result, many people now scan labels for signs of artificiality – often assuming that anything industrially made must be less healthy and less natural.

But while it’s true that some highly processed foods are best kept as occasional treats, many others play a vital role in modern diets and in building a more sustainable food system. And referring to everything from fortified oat milk to tofu to vegan sausages as ‘ultra-processed’ isn’t exactly helping people to get a clearer understanding of what constitutes healthy food.

Why are we so suspicious of processed food?

A growing number of people now associate ‘processed’ with ‘unhealthy’ – a view driven by social-media trends, food marketing, and a preference for so-called ‘natural’ eating. Research shows that people tend to trust food made at home more than the same dish made in a factory, even if the ingredients and methods are similar.¹ There’s also evidence that terms such as ‘industrial’ and ‘ultra-processed’ are enough to put people off a product – regardless of nutritional value.^{2 3}

In a recent UK survey, only two in five adults said that they understood what the term ‘ultra-processed food’ meant, but three in five nonetheless planned to eat less of it!⁴ Many were surprised to learn that foods that they considered healthy – such as wholemeal bread – were included in the ultra-processed category.

That confusion isn’t surprising. The classification systems used to define what constitutes an ‘ultra-processed’ food are complex and often fail to take nutritional value into account. In some cases, factory-produced hummus or a calcium-fortified soy drink can get lumped into the same group as sweets or fizzy drinks – simply because they’re made using industrial methods, and contain multiple ingredients.⁵

Why context matters more than classification

It’s not processing that makes a food healthy or unhealthy – it’s the overall nutritional content, as well as broader dietary patterns and how much of a particular product is consumed. A vegan steak isn’t inherently unhealthier than a meat one, although it might be more processed and contain more ingredients. Likewise, a slice of factory-baked wholemeal bread isn’t automatically worse for you than a piece of homemade cake, despite the popular perception that ‘homemade’ equals better. Health outcomes depend on far more than simply where or how a food was made – in fact, the main thing that people do in their kitchen (other than look hopefully into the refrigerator) is process foods. Peeling, slicing, boiling, cooking, mashing, roasting, and baking are all processes in which we change the chemical and physical nature of foods in order to make them pleasant and convenient to eat. 

Of course, there are also major social and economic factors at play. Processed foods are generally convenient, affordable, and accessible – particularly for people with limited time or resources. Overly simplistic warnings about ultra-processed foods can undermine the appeal of practical, healthy options such as tinned beans, wholegrain cereals, or fortified products that really are pretty close to what people make in their kitchens.

While public-health guidance needs to be clear and simple, it also needs to avoid putting products with wildly different health impacts into the same category. Fortified baby foods, for example, are processed for good reason. As are foods designed to meet the needs of people with allergies, intolerances, or specific nutritional deficiencies — like calcium-fortified soy milk or gluten-free bread suitable for people with coeliac disease.⁶

A sustainability aspect we’re overlooking

Processing isn’t just about taste and shelf life. It can also help to reduce waste, improve energy efficiency, and support climate goals. A loaf of bread made in an energy-efficient factory typically has a smaller carbon footprint than the same loaf baked at home in a conventional oven.⁷

Food waste is another critical issue. Processed fruit and veg generally spoil more slowly, meaning that less food is thrown away. It’s estimated that processing can cut waste from fruit and vegetables by about 14%.⁸ Some food manufacturers are also finding ways to turn food-processing waste into valuable nutrients – such as using by-products to extract carotenoids or plant-based proteins.^{9 10}

So what about plant-based alternatives?

Plant-based meat and dairy alternatives are often labeled as ‘highly processed’. That’s not intrinsically inaccurate – they are usually made using several steps and ingredients – but it can be very misleading. Many of these products have solid nutritional credentials, and they nearly all have a far lower environmental impact than most animal-based options. ¹¹

Some plant-based alternatives are fortified with essential nutrients such as calcium, B12, or iron. Many are lower in saturated fats than their animal-based counterparts and contain a large amount of fiber. And some have been recognized by health organizations — the Beyond Steak, for instance, was certified by the American Heart Association in 2023.¹²

Of course, not all plant-based meat or milk alternatives are nutritionally equal. But when chosen carefully, they can support a healthy, balanced, and climate-friendly diet. Opt for those alternatives that are unsweetened, low in salt, and preferably fortified. Recent modeling shows that replacing even a small percentage of animal-based products with plant-based alternatives could dramatically cut emissions and reduce deforestation.^{13 14}

Let’s talk about food in a more useful way

Processed foods aren’t going away — and they don’t need to. What matters isn’t whether a food product was made in a factory or includes unfamiliar ingredients, but whether it’s safe, nutritious, and fits into a balanced, sustainable diet.

The way we talk about food needs more nuance. Blanket warnings about ‘processed’ or ‘ultra-processed’ products may sound helpful, but they often do more harm than good – reinforcing confusion, undermining trust, and discouraging people from buying foods that may in fact support their health. That doesn’t mean that a diet built mostly on ultra-processed foods is ideal, or that research linking some UPFs to health risks should be dismissed. The problem is that many studies group very different products together, making it hard to separate genuinely unhealthy items from nutritious ones – and harder still for consumers to make sense of the results.

A more informed view of what processing actually means can help us to make better decisions – based on nutrition, not just perception. So, don’t write off a food simply because it was made in an industrial setting or has a long ingredient list. Look at what it offers in terms of health – not just how it was made.

1. Abouab, N., & Gomez, P. (2015). Human contact imagined during the production process increases food naturalness perceptions. Appetite, 91, 273–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.002 ↩︎
2. Bearth, A., & Siegrist, M. (2019). Influencing factors of US consumers’ acceptance of food irradiation. Food Quality and Preference, 71, 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.015 ↩︎
3. Hässig, A., Hartmann, C., Sanchez-Siles, L., & Siegrist, M. (2023). Perceived degree of food processing as a cue for perceived healthiness. Food Quality and Preference, 110, 104944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104944 ↩︎
4. IGD (2023). Ultra-processed foods: a consumer perspective. https://www.igd.com/Social-Impact/Health/Reports/Ultra-processed-foods-a-consumer-perspective/22006​:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1} ↩︎
5. Monteiro, C., Cannon, G., Levy, R., Moubarac, J., et al. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: What they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition, 22(5), 936–941. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018003762 ↩︎
6. Lockyer S, Spiro A, Berry S, et al. (2023). How do we differentiate not demonize? Is there a role for healthier processed foods in an age of food insecurity? Nutr Bull. 48(2), 278–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12617 ↩︎
7.  Xu, Z., Sun, D.-W., Zhang, Z., et al. (2015). Research developments in methods to reduce carbon footprint of cooking operations: A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 44(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.03.004 ↩︎
8. Frankowska, A., Rivera, X. S., Bridle, S., et al. (2020). Impacts of home cooking methods and appliances on the GHG emissions of food. Nature Food, 1(12), 787–791. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00200-w ↩︎
9. Deng Q, Zinoviadou KG, Galanakis CM, et al. (2015). The effects of conventional and non-conventional processing on glucosinolates and its derived forms. Food Eng Rev, 7(3), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12393-014-9104-9 ↩︎
10. Galanakis CM (2013). Emerging technologies for the production of nutraceuticals from agricultural by-products: a viewpoint of opportunities and challenges. Food Bioprod Process, 91(4), 575–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2013.01.002 ↩︎
11. Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216 ↩︎
12. Heart-Check Digital Grocery List. (2023). Heart.org. https://www.heart.org/en/grocery-list#q=beyond ↩︎
13. Saget, S., Costa, M., Santos, C. S., et al. (2021). Substitution of beef with pea protein reduces the environmental footprint of meat balls whilst supporting health and climate stabilization goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 297, 126447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126447 ↩︎
14. Kozicka, M., Havlík, P., Valin, H., et al. (2023). Feeding climate and biodiversity goals with novel plant-based meat and milk alternatives. Nature Communications, 14(1), 5316. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40899-2 ↩︎