A few days ago, I gave a talk for the Womens’ Institute on blood pressure and nutrition. This is one of my favourite things to do. Speaking is definitely within my Zone of Genius and I received some very generous feedback.
During my talk I mentioned ‘processed food’ a couple of times. At question time, one woman asked me, “What do you mean by processed food”?
Perfect question, and a timely slap on the wrists for little old me.
Because I hate the term ‘processed food’ with a passion.
At the moment, the world is on a crusade against processed food. The Knights of the Nutrition Round Table are searching for the Holy Grail of a completely ‘unprocessed’ diet, believing it will solve a plethora of health-related evils which blight Fair Albion.
They’re not entirely wrong but they talk enough nonsense in the process (pun intended) to have a bit of fun-poking directed their way in return. And, if you have a health qualification and make a name using terms like ‘processed’, or even its doubly evil, double-barrelled sibling ‘ultra-processed’ which lack specificity, I think you should expect a little heat in your kitchen.
I got called out on it, and rightly so.
Let me explain.
‘Process’ is something that every food undergoes in order to make it suitable for entry into your digestive tract (where it undergoes a further set of processes, but let’s leave those aside). This means that everything that happens to food until you swallow it is a process.
Some of these processes are beneficial.
For example, nobody in their right mind would advocate eating food without cutting or chewing it as required. Cooking some foods, such as tomatoes, makes their nutrients more bioavailable. Some frozen fruits and vegetables are more nutrient dense than fresh ones because rapid freezing processes retain nutrients in the food. Canning and bottling can also preserve nutrients, and fermenting is an increasingly popular process which may actually add to the value of a food. All these methods of preservation can contribute to making nutritious food more affordable and easy to use. The processes which make our water and milk safe to drink have saved countless lives. Food processing in this way can be a good thing.
So, why does processing have such a bad name?
Processing, by its very nature, is the act of turning one thing into a slightly (or vastly) different thing. In general, the more complex the end result, the more processes are needed. Think, for example, of the number of processes involved in making a cup of fresh mint tea versus the number needed to create a birthday cake, (including those needed to create usable cake ingredients such as flour and butter before you can get started).
In each of these processes, the original foodstuff undergoes a change. Sometimes its particle size or texture is changed to make it more palatable and easier to digest. Very often, something is either added to the food or taken away.
And here’s where our troubles begin.
Sometimes, the thing which is removed is the food’s nutritional superpower. For example, to make a food softer, one often needs to remove fibre, which although not classified as a nutrient, is vital for human physiological function. On other occasions, ingredients such as thickeners, sweeteners and emulsifiers are added. These are not necessarily harmful, but they do constitute an unwanted and not always necessary element in the diet. Some are designed to make food readily palatable, meaning that some people develop a taste for them and find whole foods less enjoyable. The more processes a food has undergone, the more likely it is to have had nutrition removed and non-nutritive elements added. If these types of food make up the majority of someone’s diet, that diet may be nutritionally insufficient and contribute to issues such as blood sugar imbalances and digestive problems.
This, in a nutshell, is why the wellness industry hates ultra-processed foods and why they have become the fear-foods of the 21st century. Of course, far more outlandish claims are made about them than I have outlined here, but I’m never sure whether they stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
As you can see, some food processing is essential, some is helpful, and some has the potential to be harmful. That’s why ‘processed food’ is a nebulous and rather meaningless term and why my WI friend was right to call me out on it. It combines two of my pet hates; demonization of food and imprecise use of language, so it pushes my buttons in every way.
I’m a big fan of the strategic use of quality convenience foods, and I also want to acknowledge that not all processes are harmful processes. But that doesn’t mean that it’s optimal for someone to live on highly refined, manufactured foods. It may be necessary due to socio-economic circumstances which are beyond the remit of this article, but it’s not optimal. Equally, if there were no highly refined foods, all our health issues would not go away as some people think. It really isn’t that simple, and to suggest it is encourages blame culture and ignores the complex realities of 21st century living.
The question is, how to distinguish between beneficial, neutral and potentially harmful processing in a way that is useful to the consumer and doesn’t use nonsense language. I’ve yet to come up with a good solution.
Do you have any ideas? Answers on a postcard, please.