In recent weeks, the release of the U.S. government’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) report has reignited debate around ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and their role in public health. The report places heavy emphasis on UPFs as a driver of chronic disease, and confirms the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to formally define the term — an effort that could shape dietary guidelines, school lunch programs, and product labeling. But efforts to pinpoint culprits behind rising chronic disease rates risk overstating the case against food processing in ways that may do more harm than good.
As a registered dietitian and public health advocate, I welcome serious conversations about obesity, diabetes, and unequal access to nutritious food. These are real and pressing issues in both the U.S. and Canada, and they deserve thoughtful discussion even as global targets are set. But portraying UPFs as a singular villain oversimplifies a complex challenge and risks stigmatizing the very tools we rely on to keep our food system safe, accessible, and affordable.
Food processing is not the problem; in fact, it’s part of the solution. It helps reduce waste, extend shelf life, eliminate toxins, fortify products with essential nutrients, and feed millions of Canadians year-round. In rural and remote communities, shelf-stable and packaged products are often lifelines.
Discourse around UPFs has been muddied by a lack of clarity and consistency. The NOVA classification system — widely cited in global literature — is broad and subjective, often grouping nutrient-dense foods like fortified cereals, whole grain breads, or plant-based dairy alternatives alongside products meant for enjoyment or celebration. But a healthy lifestyle can include both. Lumping them together confuses consumers and undermines informed decision-making. The real issue isn’t how a food is made, but what it contains and how it fits into an overall dietary pattern.
As the British Nutrition Foundation notes, while studies link high intakes of UPFs to poor health outcomes, these findings are largely observational and don’t prove causation. Obesity is a multifactorial condition influenced by far more than diet alone. The World Health Organization highlights the role of genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors, while a recent scoping review identified over 80 contributors, including income, stress, sleep, food literacy, and urban design. Focusing only on processing misses the bigger picture and distracts from more impactful solutions.
This is not to suggest all processed foods are equal in nutritional value. But dismissing the entire category ignores the contributions they make to public health. In Canada, manufacturers have worked with Health Canada to reduce sodium, sugars, and saturated fat, while introducing clearer front-of-pack labelling to support informed choices.
Fortification has helped address key nutrient shortfalls, such as adding vitamin D to dairy and alternatives, folic acid to flour, and iron to cereals. These are meaningful improvements that support healthier diets across the country.
Processing also plays a critical role in food safety, spoilage prevention, and contamination control — all essential to a stable, secure food supply. Promoting healthy dietary patterns requires a full toolkit: education, access, and shelf-stable, fortified options that meet the diverse needs of Canadians. Thus, oversimplified messaging can have unintended consequences. When we focus on processing alone, we risk eroding trust, stigmatizing affordability, and ignoring broader systemic factors like poverty, education, and infrastructure.
We also can’t ignore the gendered implications of the anti-UPF narrative. Calls to “just cook from scratch” overlook the realities of dual-income households, unpaid labour imbalances, and time poverty — pressures felt most acutely by women. In Canada, women perform over 60% of all unpaid household work, including meal prep, despite near-equal workforce participation. Processed, shelf-stable options often provide crucial time and labour relief; vilifying them can reinforce outdated and inequitable expectations.
As we confront rising rates of chronic disease, the conversation must stay grounded in evidence, not ideology. The role of processing in supporting food safety, access, and nutrition is too often overlooked. Canada’s food and beverage manufacturers work with government to reformulate products, improve transparency, and expand choice. Strict rules under the Food and Drugs Act govern health claims, with enforcement by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. These safeguards, alongside industry investment in responsible advertising and nutrition education, help ensure Canadians have the information and options they need to make informed choices for themselves and their families.
If we want a healthier future, we need solutions that are collaborative, contextual, and comprehensive. Let’s advance the conversation — not reduce it to black-and-white thinking. Demonizing specific foods is not the path to better health, but practical, inclusive, and evidence-informed strategies just might be.
This op-ed was originally published on LinkedIn.