Health Organizations Advocate for Nuanced View of ultra-processed Foods
WASHINGTON D.C. – Mounting evidence suggests a need to reassess how ultra-processed foods (upfs) are categorized, with growing consensus that plant-based UPFs may offer health benefits unlike their animal-based counterparts. While UPFs derived from animal products have been linked to increased risks of serious health issues, research indicates certain plant-based UPFs can contribute to a healthy diet.
Leading health organizations are acknowledging this distinction. The American Medical Association recently passed a resolution supporting public education on the differences between “healthful foods and unhealthful ultra-processed foods.” Similarly, the American Heart Association released a report stating that “not all UPFs are junk foods or have poor nutritional quality; some UPFs have better nutritional value [than others] and can be part of an overall healthy dietary pattern.”
Recent studies bolster this perspective. A Harvard study found a 44% higher risk of diabetes associated with animal-based UPFs, while ultra-processed cereals were linked to a 22% reduction in diabetes risk. A BioMed Central study correlated moderate consumption of muesli and bran cereal with reduced mortality risks from cardiovascular disease and cancer. Further research indicates that plant-based meat alternatives are a healthier choice than animal meat, even when both are ultra-processed.
research from the Physicians committee for Responsible Medicine demonstrates health improvements when animal products are replaced with plant-based alternatives – including UPFs. These benefits include weight loss, reduced hot flashes in postmenopausal women, and improved insulin sensitivity in individuals with type 1 diabetes.
Experts argue that focusing solely on the “ultra-processed” label obscures a critical public health issue: the consumption of meat and dairy. Choosing a veggie burger over a beef burger, even if both are ultra-processed, remains the healthier option.
